Water Operators Partnerships
Africa Utility Performance Assessment
50858P
ublic
Dis
clos
ure
Aut
horiz
edP
ublic
Dis
clos
ure
Aut
horiz
edP
ublic
Dis
clos
ure
Aut
horiz
edP
ublic
Dis
clos
ure
Aut
horiz
edP
ublic
Dis
clos
ure
Aut
horiz
edP
ublic
Dis
clos
ure
Aut
horiz
edP
ublic
Dis
clos
ure
Aut
horiz
edP
ublic
Dis
clos
ure
Aut
horiz
ed
�
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Water Operators Partnerships-AfricaUtility Performance
Assessment
Final Report June 2009
2
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
�
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Foreword 5
Acknowledgements 7
Executive Summary 8
List of Acronyms 10
�. Introduction �2
1.1 Purpose of this Report 12
1.2 The MDGs Challenge Facing Water Utilities in Africa 13
1.3 Responding to the Challenge: The WOP-Africa Program 14
�.�.� The global WOP movement �4
�.�.2 The Jo-burg action plan for launching WOP Africa �4
�.�.� The three WOP Africa regional workshops �6
1.4 Overview and Scope of the Utility Self-Assessment Exercise 17
�.4.� Overview �7
�.4.2 Scope and limitations �8
1.5 Overview of Participating Water Utilities 19
2. Utility Performance Assessment 27 2.1 Operational Performance and Management Information Systems 29
2.�.� Technical performance 29
2.�.2 Financial performance 60
2.1.3Overallefficiencyindicator 77
2.�.4 Quality of MIS 8�
2.�.5 Summary of operational performance 89
2.2 Human Resources Utilisation and Development 91
2.2.� Human resources utilisation 9�
2.2.2 Human resource development 97
Table of Contents
4
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
2.2.� Summary of performance on human resources utilisation
and development �0�
2.3 Customer Care �02
2.�.� Continuity of service �02
2.�.2 Customer complaints �06
2.�.� Summary of performance on customer care ��0
2.4 Infrastructure Development 110
�. Services to the Poor and Informal Settlements ��5
3.1 Affordability of domestic water connection charges 115
3.2 Affordability of utility water bills 118
3.3 Summary of performance on affordability indicator 122
4. Potential for Peer-Support Partnerships �26
5. Conclusion ��0
References ���Annex A: List of all participating utilities ���Annex B: Glossary of Indicators �49Annex C: Market place results �52
5
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
The present report provides a synthesis of the self-assessment and benchmarking exercise carried out among about ��4 African utilities engaged in water supply and
sanitation services. These assessments and the ensuing regional workshops are critical steps in the operationalization of the Water Operators Partnerships program for Africa (WOP-Africa). WOP-Africa is built on the premise that well-performing utilities will step forward and emerge as leaders and that the needs of the less well-performing utilities will be met in a professional and sustainable manner.
WOP-Africa is the regional branch of the Global WOP Alliance, a central tenet of the Hashimoto Action Plan launched at the Mexico World Water Forum (2005) and endorsed by the United Nations Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Water and Sanitation (UNSGAB). The basic strategy of WOP is to seek accelerated improvements through more intense and systematic knowledge sharing including support partnerships between operators.
The initial step to promote and develop the WOP-Africa initiative was the Nairobi (December 2006) workshop which endorsed the idea and mandated UN Habitat and the Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) to pursue its preparation. The next step was the Johannesburg Workshop (April 2007) which brought together about �00 water utility executives representing 70 water utilities in �0 African countries. The Johannesburg WorkshopdefinedtheprinciplesandgovernancestructurefortheWOP-Africaprogramand outlined the action plan for its operationalization including the continent-wide benchmarking exercise which is the object of this report.
The present synthesis report confirms that there are African utilities whose operatingstandards put them among the top 25 percent world-wide. It also shows that a large number of utilities have considerable room for improvement. Consequently, there is high potential for WOPs and progress through peer support and networking as utilities themselves are best placed to show how to move up the performance ladder.
Beforethisdocumentwasfinalized,threesub-regionalworkshopswereheldtopresentanddiscussthefindingswithparticipatingutilities,andtofacilitateface-to-facematch-making opportunities. Although efforts have been made to verify the data with utilities, there are still cases of extreme outliers which are difficult to explain. Since the mainaudience of this report is utilities, the position taken by the authors has been to report these as indicated by the respective utilities rather than eliminate dubious data, which would have required the arbitrary determination of acceptable maximums and minimums.
Foreword
6
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
This position is consistent with the principle of self-assessment; the regional workshops have made many utilities keenly aware of the gaps and weaknesses of their management information systems.
We believe that by working together and sharing the immense utility experience that exists on the continent, WOP-Africa is more likely to realize its vision of an Africa with improved waterandsanitationservicesforall.Thefindingsinthisreportwillhelpustomoveforwardin a strategic and focused manner.
Mamadou Dia
President, African Water Association (AfWA)
Hamanth Kasan
Chairman, Intertaional Water Association-Eastern and Southern Africa (IWA-ESAR)
7
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
ThisreportwasmadepossiblefirstofallbytheAfricanwaterandsanitationutilitiesthatresponded to the benchmarking questionnaires and their membership associations,
the Africa Water Association (AfWA) and the East & Southern Africa Region of the International Water Association (ESAR-IWA), which provided leadership to ensure a high rate of participation.
The benchmarking process was facilitated by the Water and Sanitation Program in Africa (WSP-AF).TheWSP-AF‘WOPteam’benefitedfromthesupportandcontributionsfrommany people, in particular: (i) Caroline van den Berg and Alexander Danilenko leading the IBNET initiative; and (ii) Mr. Dajan Hossana (WSS Sector Consultant) and Aladjin Dieng (Technical Director, Sénégalaise des Eaux) who were instrumental in collecting data from the utilities in West Africa.
The WSP-AF ‘WOP Team’ was led by Dennis Mwanza and included Dr. Josses Mugabi, Vivian Castro, Lilian Otiego, Jean Doyen, Alain Morel, Jecinter Hezron, Jane Wachuga, Norah Osoro and Bill Wandera.
Special gratitude goes to Dr. Josses Mugabi who was the principal author of the report andVivianCastrowhomanagedthebenchmarkingexerciseandfinalproductionofthisreport.
The utility self-assessment and benchmarking exercise was undertaken with financialsupport from the DfID of the UK. Financial contribution in kind was also provided by UN-Habitat’s GWOP Alliance. Other partners include the International Water Association.
Acknowledgements
8
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Urban water utilities in Africa differ greatly in terms of size, organisational culture and operating environments. But they all share one major challenge, that is, expanding
access to appropriate levels of services to their growing urban populations. This challenge can be seen clearly in the context of the MDGs where Africa lags far behind other regions. ItisnowwidelyacknowledgedthattheinefficienciesofAfricanwaterutilitiesareamajorcause of poor access to water services. In many systems, as much as a third of production is lost through physical and commercial losses and revenues are insufficient to coveroperating costs let alone expand service coverage. Thus, it is becoming clear that the real potentialintheAfricanwatersectorliesinincreasingefficiencyintheexistingsystems-forexamplebyreducingwastage,improvingservicequalityandsecuringcashflows.
Water operator’s partnerships (WOPs) have been proposed by utilities and their partners as a promisingapproachforimprovingtheefficiencyofwaterutilitiesandacceleratingprogresstowards the MDG targets for water and sanitation. At the heart of these partnerships is a strategy of intense and systematic knowledge-sharing (including peer-support) between water operators as a way of bridging the capacity gaps that exist in many countries. However, limited availability of reliable performance information across the region presents asignificantchallengetoperformanceimprovementthroughpartnershipsasitisdifficulttotell which operators are doing well and should be emulated and which ones need support from peers. To support the partnering approach, the Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) in Africa facilitated a utility self-assessment exercise among selected African water utilities to ascertain their strengths and needs and identify the most promising areas for learning and peer-support under the evolving WOP platform. This report synthesizes the results of the assessment and provides a basis for further development of the WOP program in Africa.
Thefindings,despitethemanyproblemsingettingreliabledata,broadlyconfirmtheperilousstate of the urban water sector in Africa. On average, utilities provide water to only about 65 percent of the population within their respective areas of jurisdiction while sewerage services coverage is only �6 percent. Sewerage coverage generally lags behind water in all regions but it is one of the areas where there is greatest opportunity for collaboration. ThefindingsalsoshowthatNon-RevenueWater (NRW) isamajorweakness formostutilities in the sample. In many systems, as much as a third of production is lost due to technical and commercial losses and, on average, utilities in the sample get revenue for only half of the water they produce.
Executive Summary
9
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
In addition to the NRW challenge, most utilities in the sample are currently struggling to cover even their operating costs. In all regions less than half of the utilities can be consideredfinanciallyviableand,formany,poorperformanceoncollectionsseemstobethe main problem.
Given the renewed focus on achieving the MDG targets for water and sanitation access on the continent, the evolving WOP-Africa program is well placed to connect utilities and facilitate knowledge sharing and capacity building - especially on improving technical efficiencyandimprovingcashflows,areasthatarecriticaltoimprovingservicecoverage.Contrary to the view held by many sector observers, Africa is not entirely short of well-performing utilities. Many countries have improved the institutional framework making it possible for utilities to shift from crisis management to strategic planning and performance improvement, which can be emulated by those still lagging behind. However, improvement byemulationrequires thatutilitiesare foundwhich,firstly,exhibitsuperiorperformanceand, secondly, have objectives or specific strengths whichmatch the weaknesses ofthose utilities seeking improvement. This assessment provides some indication of who the superiorperformersmightbe,butclearlymoreworkisneededtoconfirmtheirsuperiorityand ability to provide peer-support.
�0
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
AfWA African Water AssociationESAR-IWA Eastern and Southern Africa Region of the International Water AssociationGNI Gross National IncomeHRD Human Resource DevelopmentIWA International Water AssociationLpd Litres per daym3 Cubic metersM&E Monitoring and EvaluationMDGs Millennium Development GoalsMIS Management Information SystemsNRW Non-revenue waterO&M Operation and MaintenanceOCCR Operating Cost CoverageOEI OverallEfficiencyIndicatorOPEX Operating ExpensesPIP Performance Improvement PlansPSP Private Sector ParticipationSPI Staff Productivity IndexUN United NationsUN-DESA United Nations Department of Economic and Social AffairsUSAQ Utility Self Assessment QuestionnaireWSP Water and Sanitation ProgramWOP Water Operators Partnerships
List of Acronyms
��
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
�2
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Clean drinking water shortages continue tobea significantproblem
in many parts of Africa. The quality and coverage of services from most of the urban water utilities remains poor. The situation is becoming worse with high urban population growth rates reported at over 2-6 percent per year. Keeping pace with the rapid pace of urban population growth is a key challenge for urban water utilities in Africa. For a long time, measures taken by governments to address service coverage gaps have concentrated on building new infrastructure with little attention given to improving efficiency and productivityof water utilities. However, estimates of finance requirements for water andsanitation expansion point to large funding gaps and prospects of private sector investments appear bleak. These realities have compelled major players in the water sector to seek alternative approaches to improving water service coverage.
Alternative approaches include capacity-building and knowledge sharing through Water Operators Partnerships (WOPs). These partnerships have recently been recognized by utilities and their partners as a promising approach for improving the performance of water operators and accelerating progress towards the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) targets for water and sanitation services. At the most basic level, WOPs seek to bridge the capacity gaps that exist in many
Introductiondeveloping countries through intense and systematic knowledge-sharing including peer support partnerships between public operators. To support this process, WSP-Africa facilitated a utility self-assessment exercise among selected African water utilities to ascertain their strengths and needs and identify the most promising areas for learning and peer-support under the evolving WOP platform. This report synthesizes the results of the assessment and provides a basis for further development of the WOP program in Africa.
1.1 Purpose of this Report
The primary aim of this report is to take stock of African utilities’ performance in a few key areas in order to provide a sound basis for further development of the WOP programinAfrica.Specifically, thereportaims to assist utilities in identifying their strengths and weaknesses as well as best practices under the WOP-Africa priority themes in order to uncover potential partnerships for improving performance. The end is not, therefore, the collection of metric data or the calculation of performance indicators, but rather the identification of performance gaps,benchmarking against superior performers and, ultimately, the implementation of performance improvements based on quantitative and qualitative data.
��
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
The primary audience of the report is the utilities themselves - hence the stand on publishing the data as received after enquiries and clarifications andshowing wide discrepancies and possible abnormalities. Sector professionals and officials engaged in theMDG challengesfor water and sanitation services will also find this reportusefulas it is foundedonthe recognition that the drive to accelerate progress towards the MDGs for urban HH has to focus on increasing the performance of the utility through reform and capacity building.
1.2 The MDGs Challenge Facing Water Utilities in Africa
The African continent poses the most difficult challenge for achieving thewaterand sanitation MDG targets. The MDGs for water supply and sanitation services require a doubling of the pace of expansion of coverage in water supply in urban areas and a tripling for sanitation. Reaching �75 million urban customers by 20�5 as required by the MDG target for urban water services implies an average of approximately 2 to � million new connections per year (5 to 8 inhabitants per connection). This in turn would call for roughly 7,000 to �0,000 new connections per day for Africa as a whole –more than double the present rate. Most of these new customers will be poor households living in inner city slums or peri-
urbansettlementsasthemoreaffluentarealready connected.
Recent projections show that following the ‘business as usual’ trends, Sub-Saharan Africa would only reach the MDG targets for water services by 2040, and those for sanitation by 2076 (United Nations Development Programme, 2006). The WOPs initiative recognises the critical role of WSS utilities in the drive towards the MDGs for urban water and sanitation services. This presents an enormous challenge and an impetus for relevant institutions to work together to accelerate progress. It is also becoming clear that the real potential in the African water sector lies in increasing the efficiency inthe already existing systems; reducing wastage, improving service quality and securingcashflowscanincreasecoverageand revenues in the existing systems. This performance improvement approach is consistent with the evolving ‘soft path’ to water which argues for complementary investments in efficient technologies andhuman capital to increase service coverage (Wolff and Gleick, 2002).
The previous Water Utilities Partnership (WUP,1996-2006)contributedsignificantlyto the formulation of policies and practices through which African utilities could improve their performance and, most importantly, extend their services to the poor (see Box 1).
In the same line, two related WUP mantras have been broadly disseminated and are
�4
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
still relevant to the WOP program. Firstly, areasonablyefficientandfinanciallyviableutility is a pre-condition for serving the poor at scale. Second, improved utility performance isnotsufficient toserve thepoor as utilities need to work in partnership with local community-based organizations and private actors. African policy makers and sector planners readily recognized the potential and the relevance of utility partnerships and have taken steps to operationalise a WOP program on the continent that builds on WUP.
Box 1.1. WUP Vision for African Utilities
Efficient,well-managed,accountableand responsive utilities which provide equitable, sustainable, quality water and sanitation in their areas of operation.
Sector policies and institutions providing the right incentives for utilities to:
• extend services to the poor through partnerships with key stakeholders
• foster a culture of capacity-building, knowledge sharing and networking
• ensure a sound environment and sustainability of water resources
1.3 Responding to the Challenge: The WOP-Africa Program
1.3.1 The global WOP movement
The WOP-Africa program is part of the Global WOP initiative - a key element of the Hashimoto Action Plan announced by the United Nations Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Water and Sanitation during the 4th World Water Forum held in Mexico (200�). The Hashimoto Action Plan proposed WOPs as a tool for building the capacity and improving the performance of water operators in order to step up progress toward the MDG targets for water and sanitation. The WOP initiative was endorsed by UN-DESA in 2005. UN-Habitat was tasked with the responsibility for operationalising it through separate but coordinated regional initiatives under the Global WOP Alliance.
1.3.2 The Jo-burg action plan for launching WOP Africa
African water utilities through their membership associations, namely, the African Water Association (AfWA) and the Eastern and Southern Africa Region of the International Water Association (ESAR-IWA), have taken up the WOP concept and, with the support of UN-Habitat and WSP-Africa, have defined and recentlylaunched� WOP-Africa as their branch of the global WOP movement.
�The WOP-Africa program was launched on February 25, 2008 during the AfWA bi-annual congress held in Cotonou, Benin
�5
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Theutilitiesandstakeholdersgatheredfirstin Nairobi (December 2006) to review and eventually endorse the WOP approach. They subsequently met in Johannesburg (April 2007) to lay down the goals, guiding principles, priority themes and structure of WOP-Africa.
Participants of the Johannesburg (Jo-burg) workshop agreed on an action plan that would be used to develop the initial three-year business plan covering the period mid-2009 to mid-20�2. The Jo-burg Action Plan included self-assessment followed by three sub-regional workshops. The three workshops allowed participating utilities to (i) review their internal strengths and weaknesses and (ii) identify priority areas for mutual support and capacity development for accelerated progress toward the MDGs with the long term goal of achieving universal access to water and sanitation services.
The Jo-burg Workshop prioritized the following five themes to be the focus ofthe WOP-Africa action plan for knowledge sharing and capacity building:
• Management Information Systems: The aim is to assist utilities to establish or strengthen management information systems necessary for monitoring and evaluation and for performance assessments and benchmarking aimed at continuous improvement of services.
• Services to the Poor: The focus will be to strengthen pro-poor policies and
strategiesthatdefinefinancingandoperational mechanisms and tariffs that ensure equitable provision of services to all urban residents.
• WSS/MDGs Roadmap: The aim is to support water operators as they develop roadmaps and action plans with a long-term planning and financingperspectivetoaccelerateprogress towards the achievement of MDGs.
• Human Resources Development & Capacity Building: In order to foster a vibrant water sector, human resource development must be a top priority. WOP- Africa will catalyze and encourage utility-to-utility exchange of know-how and networking on training and human resource development.
• Infrastructure Development and Asset Management: Utilities have asked for support in asset planning and management. WOP-Africa will support the development and implementation of sound asset management plans with clear separation of operational and ownership roles and responsibilities.
These priority themes will guide structured learning under WOP-Africa and therefore formed the basis for the design of the utility self-assessment exercise and the subsequent synthesis of results presented in this report. In addition to the top five
�6
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
themes, the following themes were strong contenders at the Jo-burg workshop: (i) communications, (ii) customer relations, (iii) access to sanitation, and (iv) WSS services for small towns. Participants in the sub-regional workshops identified sources ofrelated expertise and good practice in all of these areas.
1.3.3 The three WOP Africa regional workshops
The three WOP Africa workshops took place over the period July 2007 to October 2008 starting with the Kampala workshop (July 2007) organized by Uganda’s NWSC which gathered utility managers and sector policymakers from Eastern Africa. It was followed by the Dakar workshop (September 2008) gathering utilities from Western & Central Africa including a contingent of senior managers from six Nigerian utilities. The last workshop directed at utilities from Southern African as well as at a number of Eastern African utilities took place in Maseru (November 2008). Each workshop gathered about 60 to �00 utility managers and representatives from other sectors and partners. All in all, more than 240 utility managers from more than 80 utilities have been exposed to the WOP concept and have participated in its preparation.
The three workshops followed similar programs meant to sequentially address the following objectives:
• to share the results of the continent-wide benchmarking exercise andvalidatethefindingsofthebenchmarking exercise conducted after Jo-burg (end-2007 and early 2008);
• to identify priority themes for exchange and learning and related good practices;
• to test the demand for peer support partnerships and help utilities identify potential ‘matches’; and
• to learn from experience the modalities and success factors for such utility-to-utility partnerships (U2U).
The priority themes for exchanges and mutual support emerging from the workshop cover a wide range of issues including sector policies as well as technical and managerial approaches and practices.Theworkshoplargelyconfirmedthe broad themes identified in Jo-burgwith the notable addition of customer care and change management. They also showed the interest of utility managers for practices addressing specific problems -for example, recovery of illegal and inactive connections, metering and billing systems, staff redundancy management and recovery of water bills from public sector entities.
The workshops confirmed the demandfor utility to utility partnerships (U2U) as participants expressed interest for more
�7
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
than 100 specific matches. The self-assessments show that U2Us are in fact alreadytakingplaceonasignificantscaleamong African utilities as well as with European partners. The cases of U2U reviewed by the participants showed that U2U come in many shapes and forms ranging from relatively short term interventionsfocusedonaspecificthemetobroader more comprehensive partnerships involving periodic joint meetings of their management teams and their boards as well as staff exchanges. As a result of the discussions and relationships forged during the regional workshops, several utilities have initiated U2U partnerships. It is fair to say that the workshops have been an effective springboard to kick-start the WOP movement in Africa.
1.4 Overview and Scope of the Utility Self-Assessment Exercise
1.4.1 Overview
Consistent with the Jo-burg Action Plan for operationalising the WOP-Africa program, a number of water utilities in Africa completed a self-assessment of their internal strengths and weaknesses using a comprehensive utility self-assessment questionnaire (USAQ) adapted from the IB-NET and SEAWUN assessment tools. The assessment covered two dimensions: (i) assessment of performance, strengths and needs in the priority themes as outlined
above; and (ii) assessment of the potential for peer-support partnerships between water operators in Africa. The USAQ contained both quantitative and qualitative questions relating to:
• Utility profile: type of services provided and institutional set-up;
• Technical information: service area/coverage, consumption and production;
• Operations: billings and collections, operating expenses (OPEX,) service continuity, metering, monitoring and evaluation, benchmarking and performance improvement planning;
• Human resources:staffingandtraining;
• Customer care: customer complaints/procedures and continuity of services;
• Pro-poor service delivery: connection fees and tariffs, pro-poor service options and strategies;
• Infrastructure and asset management: sources of raw water, treatment methods, production capacity, network information, and capital investment;
• MDGs roadmap: reforms, long-term planningandfinancing,andpotentialareas for partnerships; and
• Previous experience with utility partnerships: context, areas covered,financingandcontractualarrangements.
�8
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
1.4.2 Scope and limitations
The primary objective of the USAQ was to uncover potential partnerships between utilities by identifying the areas in which each operator is performing well (strengths) and areas in which the operator is not performing well as compared to its peers (weaknesses). A secondary objective of the assessment was to move towards standardizing the indicators for the sector in Africa by starting a dialogue on the most appropriate indicators.
Although the assessment largely utilized the USAQ data, actual performance data was obtained from multiple sources including databases maintained by the International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities (IB-NET)2 and national regulators. Given the limited timeframe and the practical difficulty of
getting utilities to complete the USAQ in time, the research team decided to source actual performance data from a variety of existing sources rather than rely entirely ontheUSAQ.Nonetheless,fillingoutthequestionnaire was the entry point for each utility to participate in the sub-regional workshop and the WOP-Africa program. Out of a total �56 utilities who were given questionnaires, more than half (99 utilities) responded. Table 1.1 shows the number of participating utilities and the sources of data.
Overall, the assessment includes data from ��4 water operators in �5 countries. The majority (99) submitted data through the USAQ while data for �5 operators was obtained from existing databases maintained by IB-NET and national regulators. All data was entered into
Sub-Region Data Sources
USAQ IB-NET Regulator Totals
Eastern �2 2 9 4�
Western 49 � 0 50
Southern �8 2� 0 4�
Totals 99 26 9 134
USAQ Response
Total Sent �56
Total Returned 99
Response rate (%) 6�
Table 1.1: Number of participating utilities and sources of data
2www.ib-net.org
�9
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
aspreadsheet and checked for accuracy, completeness and reliability. Questionable values and data gaps were rectifiedthrough follow-up communications with focal persons within each participating utility. In addition, data and findings ofthe assessment were presented at three utility sub-regional workshops held in June (Kampala), September (Dakar) and October (Maseru) of 2008 to validate its accuracy and reliability. In these workshops, the utilities themselves had a chance to point out data inconsistencies and misrepresentations and suggested ways of improving indicators, data quality and reporting.
Some limitations of this exercise should be noted. First, the analysis presented in this report is based on data for a single year (2006). Thus, the analysis provides only a snapshot of performance. The limited availability of reliable utility performance data across the region presents a significantchallengetoanybenchmarkingexercise that seeks to establish trends in performance. At present, only a few utilities are able to provide even a limited set of performance statistics. There is hardly any comprehensive assessment of performance by which inter-utility comparisons can be made over time. While the USAQ tool itself was comprehensive, many utilities do not have the supporting information systems to easily and accurately respond to the questionnaire. Future benchmarking exercises will expectedly improve on the data and experience gained so that, over
time, an African water utility dataset will develop allowing for further analysis of performance (such as trends and drivers) which would further inform partnership initiatives.
Secondly, indicators tend to portray an incomplete picture of a utility’s performance as they often exclude other contributing factors such as accountability of institutions and incentives that are not readily quantifiable. Moreover, utilitiesfacedifferentsocial,politicalandfinancialconstraints which need to be taken into account when evaluating performance. For these reasons, the indicators presented in this assessment should not be interpreted in a rigid fashion. Rather they should be taken only as indicative of the strength or weakness of a utility relative to its peers. The analysis is meant to provide the initial motivation for utility managers to ‘pay eachotheravisit’.Thisfirstvisitcouldbethe beginning of a long-term and mutually beneficial partnership. The next sectionprovides an overview of the utilities for which performance data was obtained. Analysis of performance and inter-utility comparisons are discussed in Chapter 2.
1.5 Overview of Participating Water Utilities
The self-assessment exercise sought to cover a broad spectrum of water utilities in Africa. Table 1.2 shows the number of utilities represented by region
20
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
and by country. In total, �5 countries are represented. A list of all participating utilities (with names and nature of service area, whethere single city or national) is presented in Annex A. A summary of the type of services provided by the utilities is shown in Figure 1.1.
Almost all utilities (97 percent) provide piped water services. Of these, about 20 percent also provide bulk water to other utilities. About half (44 percent) of utilities provide both water and wastewater services while 42 percent provide water only. The Southern region has the highest number of utilities (68 percent) providing wastewater services. Only one utility in the sample (ONAS, Senegal) provides wastewater services only.
In terms of population served there is a marked regional variation in the size
of utilities (Figure 1.2, Tables 1.3 and 1.4).Small utilities (serving <�00,000 people) are to be found predominantly in the Eastern region while medium size utilities (serving �00,000-�,000,000) are common in the South. Most of the large utilities (>�,000,000) are in the Western region where the urban water sector is largely centralised. Furthermore, of the ��4 participating utilities, the majority (68 utilities) serve single cities/municipalities; �9 utilities operate at the regional level (regional utilities); and 25 utilities operate at the national level (national utilities). Single city utilities are to be found predominantly in the Eastern and Southern regions.
There are no single city utilities in the Western region. The sample also included two asset holding companies - DAWASA (Tanzania) and SPEN (Niger). The institutional structures of the utilities are
Figure 1.1: Type of services provided
2�
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Region Countries No. of utilities
Eastern Burundi �
Democratic Rep. of Congo �
Djibouti �
Ethiopia 6
Kenya 7
Madagascar �
Rwanda �
Seychelles �
Sudan �
Tanzania 20
Uganda �
Total Eastern 11 43
Western Benin �
Burkina Faso �
Cape Verde �
Cote d’Ivoire �
Gabon �
Gambia �
Ghana �
Liberia �
Mali �
Mauritania �
Niger �
Nigeria �4
Republique De Guinee �
Senegal 2
Togo �
Tunisia �
Total Western 16 50
Southern Lesotho �
Malawi 4
Mauritius �
Mozambique 5
Namibia �
South Africa �8
Swaziland �
Zambia 8
Total Southern 8 41
Total Africa 134
2�
22
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 1.2: Regional variation in population served (2006 figures)
10 Largest Utilities (By population served – 2006 data)
� Rand Water (South Africa) ��,000,000
2 Ghana Water Company Limited (Ghana) 9,�6�,760
� Société Nationale d’Exploitation et de Distribution des Eaux (SONEDE, Tunisia) 8,�00,000
4 Société de Distribution d’Eau de Cote d’Ivoire (SODECI, Cote d’Ivoire) 6,�42,072
5 Lagos Water Corporation (Nigeria) 5,57�,855
6 eThekwini Metro (South Africa) 4,��4,679
7 Sénégalaise des Eaux (Senegal) �,82�,460
8 Johannesburg Water (South Africa) �,692,�2�
9 Cape Town Metro (South Africa) �,229,50�
�0 Nairobi Water & Sewerage Company (Kenya) �,000,000
Table 1.3: List of largest utilities by population
2�
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
summarised in Figures 1.3 and 1.4 with each type having significant implicationson the operator’s decision-making autonomy. The majority of utilities (49) are state owned enterprises operating under commercial law with Eastern utilities being the most represented under this category. A sizeable number of utilities (24) operate as statutory organisations following state requirements. The sample of utilities also includes ring-fenced government/municipal departments (�5) and a small number of privately owned companies operating under commercial law (5) as well as a few asset holding companies (�).
Institutional models involving private sector participation (PSP) are limited. Out of ��4 utilities, more than half (7�) do not have any form of private sector participation. A total of �9 utilities (29 percent) have some
sort of private sector involvement in their operations through service contracts, while only seven utilities (5 percent) have more elaborate PSP models. Table 1.5 lists the few utilities with more elaborate forms of private sector participation.
On the other hand, although PSP is uncommon in the sample, almost half (4� percent) of the utilities operate under performance contracts with central or local governments. This arrangement is particularly common among utilities in the Eastern region (60 percent of utilities in this region have performance contracts). For instance, the National Water and Sewerage Corporation (NWSC) of Uganda engages in annual and multi-year performance contracts with the central government. Performance contracts also exist in all utilities in Zambia, Lesotho and
10 Smallest Utilities (By population served - 2006 data)
� Welkite Town Water Supply and Sewerage Enterprise (Ethiopia) �0,225
2 Naivasha Water, Sewerage & Sanitation Company (Kenya). 24,000
� Lindi Urban and Sewerage Authority (Tanzania) 28,�50
4 Oshakati Municipality (Namibia) ��,000
5 FIPAG Quilimane (Mozambique) ��,598
6 Bukoba Urban Water and Sewerage Authority (Tanzania) 46,270
7 Harar Water Supply & Sewerage Services Authority (Ethiopia) 48,900
8 Municipality of Walvis Bay (Namibia) 54,025
9 Singida Urban Water and Sewerage Authority (Tanzania) 54,�65
�0 Sumbawanga Urban Water and Sewerage Authority (Tanzania) 55,772
Table 1.4: List of smallest utilities by population served
24
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 1.3: Number of participating utilities by institutional set-up
Utility Name PSP Model
Ghana Water Company Limited (Ghana) Management contract
National Water & Electricity Company (Gambia) Management contract
ELECTRA S.A. - Empresa de Electricidade e Agua (Cape Verde) Lease contract
Sénégalaise des Eaux (SDE, Senegal) Lease contract
Aguas de Mozambique, S.A.R.L (Mozambique) Lease contract
Societe de Distribution d’Eau de Cote d’Ivoire (SODECI, Cote d’lvoire) Lease contract
Société d’Energie et d’Eau du Gabon (Gabon) Concession
Table 1.5: Utilities with more elaborate forms of PSP
25
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Swaziland. The contracts have an average durationoffiveyearsandcovertechnicalperformance,serviceindicators,efficiencyandfinancialindicators,aswellashumanresources issues.
Third party monitoring and oversight is also present in 58 percent of the utilities, suggesting that serious attention is being paid to enhancing external accountability for results. However,effective implementation of performance contracts depends on how internal incentive mechanisms are established. Utilities such as SDE (Senegal) and NWSC (Uganda) have performance-based management systems and enforce penalties for poor performance. Given their attractiveness as instruments for driving improvements in utility performance, performance-based contracts are becoming increasingly popular in the African water sector.
As such, their design and implementation is a promising area for knowledge sharing and learning between utilities.
Overall, the above comparison of services, institutional set-up and size of utilities shows that even though the assessment exercise may not have been representative of water utilities in Africa, it certainly does cover a broad spectrum of water utilities. The exercise was carried out across many countries and many types of institutions providing tremendous opportunities for learning.
Chapter 2 of this report will compare the ��4 water utilities on the basis of selected performance indicators to identify the relatively stronger and weaker utilities in each area, as well as promising areas for learning and peer-support partnerships.
26
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
26
27
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
2. Utility Performance Assessment
Based on the data provided by participating utilities and that obtained from other sources, a
broad range of indicators was selected to enable a comparative assessment of the different aspects of water utility performance. Consistent with the overall objective of the assessment exercise, indicators were selected on the basis of their usefulness in capturing performance differences in the key priority themes of the WOP-Africa program. As these themes were generally stated, it was necessary to translate them into corresponding performance categories and indicators.
Table 2.1 shows the list of indicators used under each theme. All quantitative indicators are based on standard IB-NET definitions,andthebasedataused is forasingleyear(2006).Performanceprofilesof utilities on these indicators were derived from basic data provided by the utilities themselves and computations using the formulas given in Annex B.
Given the large amount of information that results from any benchmarking exercise, it is important to be clear on how comparisons are made between water utilities. First, the performance of any utility in this sample was compared with those of other participating utilities and not to any other objective norm, such as national or international standards.
This means that if all utilities in the group� performed exceptionally, then even the lowest in the group cannot be said to be poorly performing. Similarly, if the entire group performed poorly, then even the top in the group cannot be said to be a good performer.
In this report, we considered a reasonable target for improving utility performance as the level of the lowest value within the top quartile (i.e. the top 25 percent). This is the same approach used by Tynan and Kingdom (2002) in their paper on setting performance targets for water utilities. Using data from �2� utilities in 44 developing countries, Tynan and Kingdom (2002) propose ‘best practice’ targets for developing countries on the basis of the performance of the top 25 percent of developing country utilities in their sample. Thus, for most of the indicators calculated in our sample, strong and weak utilities wereidentifiedbasedontheperformanceof the top 25 percent of the group. As will be noted later, for most of the indicators, this target performance level was fairly consistent with the ‘best practice’ targets proposed by Tynan and Kingdom (2002). Moreover, during the sub-regional workshops, utility managers discussed these targets and agreed that they were reasonable and achievable in the African context.
�Utilities were grouped into geographical sub-regions (Eastern, Western and Southern). The reason for this was to encourage utilities to look within their sub-region for a partner - and only look outside the sub-region if there are no “good performers”. This is because of the high cost implications of travel in Africa.
28
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
WOP-Africa Theme
Operational Performance and Management Information Systems (MIS)
Technical performance
�. Service coverage
2. Water production and consumption
�. Non-revenue water
Financial performance
4. Average tariff and unit operational
cost
5. Collection ratio
6. Collection period
7. Operating cost coverage
Quality of MIS 8. % of USAQ response
Human Resource Development and Capacity Building
Human resource utilisation
9. Total staff per �000 connections
�0. Labour cost as a % of total operating
costs
Human resource development
��. Staff training participation rate
�2. Total no. of training days
Customer Care and Services to the Poor
Customer service
��. No. of customer complaints per�000
connections
�4. Continuity of supply (hours of service)
�5. Average response time to address a
complaint
Affordability of services
�6. Average per capita water bill as a %
of GNI per capita
�7. Monthly household bill for HH
consuming 6m� per month as % of
monthly GNI per capita
�8. Water connection charge as % of
GNI per capita
Infrastructure Development
Capital investment
�9. Capital expenditure in last 5 years
(per connection)
Performance Category
Indicators
Table 2.1: Selected indicators used for comparative performance assessment
28
29
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Also, for each quantitative indicator, we calculated the mean value which is usually helpful in gauging median performance. However, since the assessment exercise did not utilise statistical sampling, no inference can be made about the performance of non-participating utilities based on the mean value. Individual participating utilities can compare their performance against the group average. But as earlier suggested a better target for improving performance would be to move up within the top quartile of the group. We also compared the mean values with those from other regions in order to determine how this sample of African utilities is faring in comparison to other utilities elsewhere in the world. Here, we made use of the IB-NET data performance dataset to compute the average values of key indicators for utilities from East and Central Asia (ECA), Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), andEastAsiaandthePacific(EAP).
Another way of ensuring meaningful comparisons between water utilities is by useofanoverallefficiencyindicator(OEI).This indicator attempts to provide a global measureofutilityefficiencybycomparingthe volume of water for which the utility collects revenue and the total volume of water it produces. The OEI is intuitive, and although not entirely perfect, provides a good indication of the overall position of a utility, allowing us to make overall conclusions on performance.
In the following sections, we present the summary of results for all the utilities where
data was available. The presentation of results is organised according to the themes and performance categories shown in Table 2.1. A number of graphs are presented with the top quartile (top 25 percent) values marked for each indicator, where appropriate, and also taking into account the nature of the indicator (e.g. for NRW percent and staff productivity, the lower quartile is used as lower values indicate good performance). In addition, while the top quartile values for most indicators represent the suggested cut-off point for identifying strong and weak performance, this cut-off point may not be appropriate for all indicators. For example, the top quartile may not be a relevant target for per capita consumption - as very high values may indicate wasteful use of water while very low values may point to insufficient availability of water for basicpublic health.
2.1 Operational Performance and Management Information Systems
2.1.1 Technical performance
Technical performance was assessed using three key indicators:
• coverage -definedasthepercentageof the population with access to water or sewerage services (either with direct service connection or within reach of a public water point) as a percentage
�0
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
of the total population under a utility’s area of responsibility
• water production and consumption - both expressed by population served per day ( production included purchased water, if any)
• metering level-definedasnumberofconnections with operating meter as a percentage of total connections
• non-revenue water-definedasthedifference between water supplied and water sold (i.e. volume of water ‘lost’) expressed as a percentage of net water supplied
Coverage: This is a key indicator for the MDGs but its assessment is usually affected by whether the data on population is up
Figure 2.1: Regional variation in service coverage
to date and accurate. An estimate of the population with direct service connections is fairly easy to make if a utility has good customer records. But estimating the population within reach of a public water point is problematic. Notwithstanding these data problems, a total of ��8 utilities provided fairly credible base data for water coverage, while base data for sewerage was available for only �8 utilities out of the 59 utilities that provide sewerage services.
Figure 2.1 shows the regional averages and the average for all utilities in the sample. Utilities from Southern region have on average the highest coverage for both water and sewerage. But sewerage coverage lags behind water in all the regions. For the Western region, there is limited data on coverage of sewerage services. The mean value shown in Figure
��
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.2: Water coverage for utilities in the Eastern region
�2
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.3: Water coverage for utilities in the Western region
�2
��
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.4: Water coverage for utilities in the Southern region
��
�4
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.5: Sewerage coverage for utilities in the Eastern region
Figure 2.6: Sewerage coverage for utilities in the Western region
�4
�5
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.7: Sewerage coverage for utilities in the Southern region
2.1isbasedondatafromonlyfiveutilities,i.e. ONAS (Senegal) - the national sanitation agency for Senegal; LWSC (Liberia); ENSWC (Enugu State, Nigeria); ANWSC (Anambra State, Nigeria); and SODECI (Cote d’lvoire). Data presented in Figure
2.1 also show that Africa lags behind other world regions (ECA, LAC and EAP) as far as service coverage is concerned.
Water and sewerage coverage levels for individual utilities are shown in Figures
�6
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
2.2-2.7. Based on the performance of the top 25 percent of all the utilities, a reasonable cut-off point for identifying strong and weak performers is 90 percent for water and 82 percent for sewerage. With these levels, the Southern region has the largest number of best performers for both water and sewerage coverage - the majority being South African utilities. A few utilities from the Eastern region - MBUWASA (Mbeya, Tanzania), AAWSA (Addis, Ethiopia), TUWASA (Tanga, Tanzania), PUC (Seychelles), MUWASA (Moshi, Tanzania), MWAUWASA (Mwanza, Tanzania) IRUWASA (Iringa, Tanzania), and ELECTOGAZ (Rwanda) - are also part of the best performer group for water coverage, while SDE (Senegal), SODECI (Cote d’lvoire), and JSWB (Nigeria) are the only utilities from the Western region making it to the best performer group for water coverage.
None of the utilities in the Eastern and Western region can be considered good performers on sewerage coverage. The highest sewerage coverage reported in the Eastern region is 44 percent (MUWASA, Moshi Tanzania) and some utilities in the Western region such as SODECI (Cote d’lvoire) and ANWSC (Anambra State, Nigeria) report the lowest sewerage coverage levels in the entire sample.
It should be noted however that the USAQ focused on water-borne sewerage. It did not capture data regarding on-site sanitation even though the majority of Africa’s urban residents rely on on-site solutions such
as pit latrines and septic tanks. Future benchmarking exercises should include questions on the institutional arrangements for on-site sanitation including whether or not the utility has the mandate to empty on-site facilities, the cost of providing such services and information on partnerships with the private sector.
Water production and consumption: The production indicator measures total annual water supplied for distribution while the consumption indicator represents the average daily consumption per person. Both provide an indication of the overall efficiency of water resources use. Thecoverage data presented above focuses on the reach of the distribution network. However, ultimately, the possibility of expanding coverage depends on the availability of sufficient water productioncapacity in the service area relative to the resident population. Production and consumption data was available for a total of ��� and 94 utilities respectively. Figure 2.8 shows the regional summary. In Southern utilities, the average volume of water produced is about 222 litres per capita per day for each person resident in the service area. This indicates that there is already enough water available to provide a reasonable level of consumption if the distribution networks could be expanded to cover the entire population.
In contrast, utilities in the Eastern and Western regions have respectively only �24 and 90 litres per capita per day available even just for those customers
�7
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.8: Regional variation in water production and consumption
who are already connected to the system. If these utilities were to connect their entire unserved population overnight the availability of water would drop to half suggesting that these utilities will need to invest both in water production capacity and water distribution networks in order to reach universal coverage.
While estimates for water consumed are not necessarily very accurate, the evidence available suggests that end-user water consumption in the sample of African utilities assessed is far from excessive. The overall average consumption works out at a fairly modest 87 litres per capita per day, compared to an average of 2�7 litres reported in ECA; 20� litres in LAC and �40 litres in EAP. As noted above, this
data should be interpreted with caution as some utilities provided estimates due to the absence of universal consumption metering. For utilities where customers are almost �00 percent metered, total consumption can be calculated quite accurately. For utilities relying on estimates, it can be quite difficulttodeterminethesplitbetweentrueconsumption and unaccounted for water.
Estimates of production and consumption levels for individual utilities in each region are summarised in Figures 2.9 - 2.14. Almost all utilities in the Southern region (except two - NWWSSL, Zambia and LWB, Malawi) have more than �00 litres per capita per day of water production available for the entire service area if the physical infrastructure to distribute the
�8
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
water to them were available. At the other end of the spectrum, seven utilities (SWC-Nyala Sudan, DDWSSA-Ethiopia, LWSC-Liberia, JTWSSSE -Jimma, Ethiopia, TdE-Togo, SEG -Guinea and PSWB - Plateau State, Nigeria produce less than 50 litres per capita per day even for their currently served population. Consumption data seems fairly comparable between utilities, although there are some utilities (especially South African utilities) reporting relatively high per capita consumption (>200 lpd).
While application of the top 25 percent target may not be applicable in this case, utilities should aim to achieve the middle ground where customers have enough water available to support daily needs but consumption should not be so high as to be wasteful. The median value for all utilities is 76 lpd. Overall, there is no evidence of wasteful over-use of water in the sample of utilities assessed, nor that current, relatively modest levels of consumption could be further reduced by more aggressive use of demand management tools. However, while water use by the end-user can be characterised as modest, a substantial volume of water is lost during the distribution process as we will see later on.
While estimates for water consumed are not necessarily very accurate, the evidence available suggests that end-user water consumption in the sample of African utilities assessed is far from excessive. The overall average consumption works out at a fairly modest 87 litres per capita
per day, compared to an average of 2�7 litres reported in ECA; 20� litres in LAC and �40 litres in EAP. As noted above, this data should be interpreted with caution as some utilities provided estimates due to the absence of universal consumption metering. For utilities where customers are almost �00 percent metered, total consumption can be calculated quite accurately. For utilities relying on estimates, it can be quite difficult to determine thesplit between true consumption and unaccounted for water.
Estimates of production and consumption levels for individual utilities in each region are summarised in Figures 2.9 - 2.14. Almost all utilities in the Southern region (except two - NWWSSL, Zambia and LWB, Malawi) have more than �00 litres per capita per day of water production available for the entire service area if the physical infrastructure to distribute the water to them were available. At the other end of the spectrum, seven utilities (SWC-Nyala Sudan, DDWSSA-Ethiopia, LWSC-Liberia, JTWSSSE -Jimma, Ethiopia, TdE-Togo, SEG -Guinea and PSWB - Plateau State, Nigeria produce less than 50 litres per capita per day even for their currently served population. Consumption data seems fairly comparable between utilities, although there are some utilities (especially South African utilities) reporting relatively high per capita consumption (>200 lpd).
While application of the top 25 percent target may not be applicable in this case, utilities should aim to achieve the middle
�9
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.9: Water production data for utilities in the Eastern region
�9
40
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.10: Water consumption data for utilities in the Eastern region
40
4�
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.11: Water production data for utilities in the Western region
4�
42
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.12: Water consumption data for utilities in the Western region
42
4�
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.13: Water production data for utilities in the Southern region
4�
44
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.14: Water consumption data for utilities in Southern region
44
45
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.15: Regional variation in average metering levels
ground where customers have enough water available to support daily needs but consumption should not be so high as to be wasteful. The median value for all utilities is 76 lpd. Overall, there is no evidence of wasteful over-use of water in the sample of utilities assessed, nor that current, relatively modest levels of consumption could be further reduced by more aggressive use of demand management tools. However, while water use by the end-user can be characterised as modest, a substantial volume of water is lost during the distribution process as we will see later on.
Metering level: The metering of customers is considered good practice. It allowscustomers to influence theirwater
bills and provides utilities with tools and information to allow them to better manage their systems. A total of 75 utilities provided fairly credible data on metering practices. Figure 2.15 provides a regional summary of metering levels. Southern and Western utilities have slightly higher than average levels of metering coverage.
Metering levels for individual utilities are shown in Figures 2.16-2.18. Based on the performance of the top 25 percent of all the utilities �00 percent metering is a reasonable target for utilities to achieve. With this level of metering, we can identify a total of 24 best performers - �4 in the Southern region, seven in the Western region and three in the Eastern region. Lack of universal metering is indeed a big
46
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.16: Metering levels for utilities in the Eastern region
46
47
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.17: Metering level for utilities in the Southern region
47
48
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.18: Metering level for utilities in the Western region
problem for utilities in the Eastern region. Almost half of the Eastern utilities in the sample have less than 75 percent meter coverage, implying that utility managers in the region may not be fully in control of their systems. On the other hand, metering is relatively widespread in the Western and Southern regions with almost half of utilities in these regions reporting �00 percent coverage.
Non-revenue water: Non revenue water (NRW) represents water that has been produced and is ‘lost’ before it reaches the customer (either through leaks, theft or through legal usage for which no payment is made). This indicator captures not only physical losses but also commercial losses due to inefficient billing or illegalconnections. Thus high levels of NRW
may indicate poor system management and poor commercial practices as well as inadequate network maintenance.
There is debate as to the most appropriate measure of non revenue water. A percentage approach can make utilities with high levels of consumption, or compact networks, appear to be better performing than those with low levels of consumption or extensive networks. To capture these different perspectives we will report three measures - NRW expressed as a percentage, as volume lost per unit length of network per day and as volume lost per connection per day. A total of 98 utilities had base data for calculating NRW (percent), 8� had data for calculating NRW (m�/km/d) and 9� had data for NRW (m�/conn/day). Figure 2.19 summarises the
48
49
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
regional variation in all three measures of NRW.
Data presented in Figure 2.19 shows little regional variation in the NRW levels expressed as a percentage. There is also little distinction between regions when it comes to the volume of water lost per unit length of network and per connection. Southern utilities have slightly high water losses per kilometre of network and per connection compared to the other two regions despite a comparable level of NRW (percent). This difference may be due
Figure 2.19: Regional variation in NRW levels
to the relatively high levels of consumption reported by Southern utilities.
Nevertheless, the average level of NRW in the entire sample is �6 percent, and well above the good practice levels for developing countries considered to be below 2� percent according to Tynan and Kingdom (2002). This is not to suggest that the NRW problem is an African problem. Utilities in other world regions report similar levels of NRW (an average of �9 percent for EAC and LAC and �6 percent for EAP)
50
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.20: NRW levels (percent) for utilities in the Eastern region
50
5�
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.21: NRW levels (m3/km/day) for utilities in the Eastern region
5�
52
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.22: NRW levels (m3/conn/day)4 for utilities in the Eastern region
52
4Note:NRWfiguresexpressedinm3perconnectionperdayareprovidedtoillustratetheextentoftheNRWproblem.Butitdoesnot mean that we have, say for DAWASCO, �m� of water hosing out of every connection per day. Leakage is only one component of NRW.
5�
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.23: NRW levels (percent) for utilities in the Western region
54
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.24: NRW levels (m3/km/day) for utilities in the Western region
55
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.25: NRW levels (m3/conn/day) for utilities in the Western region
56
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.26: NRW levels (percent) for utilities in the Southern region
56
57
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.27: NRW levels (m3/km/day) for utilities in the Southern region
57
58
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance AssessmentFigure 2.28: NRW levels (m3/conn/day) for utilities in the Southern region
58
59
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Table 2.2: Best performing utilities in all NRW categories
Utility name Region NRW (%)
NRW (m�/km/day)
NRW (m�/conn/day)
� Saldanha Bay (South Africa) Southern 5 �.29 0.07
2 CWWS (Windhoek, Namibia) Southern �� 4.26 0.�4
� Drakenstein (South Africa) Southern �2 8.�� 0.�0
4 Potchefstroom (South Africa) Southern �� ��.24 0.�8
5 SEEN (Niger) Western �7 7.90 0.22
6 ONEA (Burkina Faso) Western �8 4.80 0.�8
7 SDE (Senegal) Western 20 9.�0 0.�6
8 TdE (Togo) Western 20 5.20 0.�9
9 TUWASA (Tanga, TZ) Eastern 2� �2 0.�
�0 SODECI (Cote d’lvoire) Western 2� 8.50 0.�8
�� SONEDE (Tunisia) Western 2� 6.60 0.�4
�2 Mogale (South Africa) Southern 25 7.62 0.�6
�� Matjhabeng (South Africa) Southern 25 ��.8 0.�8
Best Performers in NRW Management
suggesting that NRW is indeed a global problem.
Levels of NRW for individual utilities in the sample are summarised in Figures 2.20-2.28. Based on the performance of the top 25 percent of all utilities, reasonable cut-off points for identifying strong and weak performers are 25, �2, and 0.� for NRW percent, NRW m�/km/day and NRW m�/conn/day respectively. Using these values we are able to identify a total 27
best performing utilities under the percent NRW sub-category, 22 under the NRW m�/km/day sub-category, and �� under the NRW m�/conn/day sub-category. However, only �� utilities (6 Southern, 6 Western and � Eastern) belong to all three groups (see Table 2.2). These utilities can therefore be regarded as the ‘pack leaders’ on NRW management as they appear to be doing well in controlling NRW levels across the board. Utilities in the Eastern
60
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
region generally perform poorly on NRW
management.
2.1.2 Financial performance
Financial performance was assessed using the following key indicators:
• average tariff per m3 sold - expressed as the ratio of a utility’s total annual direct billed revenue to total annual water consumption (that is, volume of water sold). Direct revenue is the actual amount billed for water services. Domestic, commercial and industrial revenue is included but bulk water revenue is excluded. Revenue from other sales, sundry income or interest
received is excluded as are direct revenue subsidies;
• unit operating cost per m3 sold - expressed as the ratio of a utility’s total annual operating expenses and total annual volume of water sold;
• operating cost coverage ratio (OCCR) - definedastheratiooftotalannual billed revenues to total annual operating costs (excluding interest and depreciation);
• collection ratio -definedastheratioof a utility’s actual revenues collected and total billed revenues, expressed as a percentage;
• collection period - year-end
Figure 2.29: Regional variation of average tarriff vs. Unit operational costs
6�
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
accounts receivables as a share of annual revenues, expressed in day equivalents.
Average tariff, unit operating costs and operating cost coverage: Average tariff measures the notional average tariff of the utility. It is not the same as the actual tariff charged which may include tariff bands and different tariffs for domestic and industrial customers. Utilities should be aiming to provide a good service to customers while keeping charges as low as possible. Unit operational costs per cubic metre sold reflect the cost of providingwater at thecustomer take off point while operating cost coverage ratio (OCCR) is a key measure of the utility’s ability to cover its operating costs (excluding interest and depreciation) from revenues, without reliance on external subsidies. Taken together, these three indicators give insight into the financialdiscipline of a utility, its ability to cover operational costs with revenues from tariffs and the general commitment to pursue a commercial approach to the provision of a public service.
Base data for the average tariff and unit operating cost indicators was available for 9� utilities in the sample. Figure 2.29 summarises the regional variations in average tariff and unit operating costs. Data presented in Figure 2.29 shows that on average all participating utilities are barely able to cover operational costs from tariff revenues. This is further illustrated by individual utility data presented in Figures 2.30, 2.31 and 2.32. In the Eastern
region, the average tariff per cubic meter of water billed ranges from as low as US$0.�2 (SOUWASA, Songea Tanzania) to as high as US$�.�6 (KIWASCO, Kisumu Kenya). The range for Western utilities is US$0.0� (RWSB, Nigeria) to US$�.09 (LWSC, Liberia). In general, the highest average tariffs are to be found in the Southern region with a quarter of the sample reporting average tariffs more than US$�.0 per cubic meter of water billed and an average of US$ 0.76 compared to only US$0.4 - 0.6 elsewhere in Africa. Utilities in the Eastern region report lower operating costs compared to the other regions. The average for Southern utilities is twice that of Eastern utilities but the difference largely reflectsthehighcostofwater inNamibiaand South Africa.
Furthermore, individual utility data on operating cost coverage ratios is presented in Figures 2.33 - 2.35. An OCCR value greater than one means that revenues from tariffs cover the operating and maintenance (O&M) costs. A value less than one indicates that a utility is not able to cover its O&M costs. An OCCR value equal to one means that a utility barely covers its O&M costs. The average OCCR value for the entire sample is just about unity, further indicating that operating costs are covered with a narrow margin that likely falls well short of what is needed to recoup capital expenditures. Based on the performance of the top 25 percent of the sample of utilities, a reasonable OCCR target for identifying best performers is �.2 - slightly
62
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
lower than the benchmark level of �.5 for developing countries as proposed by Tynan and Kingdom (2002). Based on this criterion only 20 utilities (out of the 9�) can be considered good performers - 8 from the Southern region, 6 from the Western and 6 from the Eastern region.
It should be noted that the calculation of OCCR values above was based on billed revenues rather than actual collections. When actual collections are used in the calculation the story changes dramatically. For a start, the average OCCR for the entire sample drops from unity to just about 0.8, suggesting that without improvements in collections, utilities will continue to struggle to meet their operating costs. Individual utility data is even more revealing (see Figures 2.36-2.38). In the Eastern region, with the exception of MWSC (Mombasa, Kenya), NWSCO (Nairobi, Kenya) and DDWSSA (Dire Dawa, Ethiopia), all the other utilities would fail to cover their operating costs (Figure 2.36). Moreover, if we consider the benchmark OCCR value of �.2, all the utilities previously considered good performers would lose their places in the group.
Similarly, in the Western region, only three utilities - SDE (Senegal), GWCL (Ghana) and SONEB (Benin) - would be able to meet their O&M costs, but only SDE (Senegal) and SONEB (Benin) maintain their place in the best performer group (Figure 2.37). IntheSouthernregion,fiveutilities-CWA(Mauritius), Midvaal (S.Africa), WASA
(Lesotho), Saldanha Bay (S.Africa) and Stellenbosch (S.Africa) - would meet their operating costs from collected revenues. However, of the eight utilities previously considered good performers, only CWA and Midvaal would maintain their place in the group (Figure 2.38). These results lead to a rather obvious conclusion that without improving collections most utilities in the samplewouldstruggletostayafloat.
The results also seem to suggest that utilities do not necessarily need to increase tariffstoimprovefinancialviability.Puttingmore effort in improving collections and reducing losses can be just as effective and could be the initial step utilities need totaketowardsfinancialviability.Thenextsub-section examines the performance of utilities on key collections indicators.
Collection ratio and collection period: These indicators, along with average tariff and operating cost coverage ratio, impact on the financial health of a utility.Utility managers know very well that billing customers and getting paid are two different things. Poor collection efficiencyis mostly blamed on customers but the utility may also be at fault for delayed and faulty billings, inadequate responses to consumer queries on billings, poor customer service and a lukewarm effort to collect overdue accounts.
The effectiveness of the collections process is measured by the amount of outstanding
6�
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.30: Average tariff vs. unit operating 1costs for utilities in the Eastern region
6�
64
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.31: Average tariff vs. unit operating costs for utilities in the Western region
65
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.32: Average tariff vs. unit operating costs for utilities in the Southern region
65
66
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.33: Operating cost coverage ratios for utilities in the Eastern region
66
67
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.34: Operating cost coverage ratios for utilities in the Western region
67
68
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.35: Operating cost coverage ratios for utilities in the Southern region
68
69
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.36: OCCR based on actual revenues vs. OCCR based on billings (Eastern region)
69
70
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.37: OCCR based on actual revenues vs. OCCR based on billings (Western region)
7�
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.38: OCCR based on actual revenues vs. OCCR based on billings (Southern region)
72
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.39: Regional averages for collection ratio and collection period
revenues at year end compared to the total billed revenue for the year, in day equivalents and by the total amount collected as a percentage of the billed amount. A total of 78 utilities had usable
base data for calculating collection ratios but only 68 utilities had data on accounts receivables. Figure 2.39 shows the regional averages for collection ratio and collection period.
Table 2.3: Examples of Utilities Reporting Collection Ratios >100 %
SOUWASA (Songea, TZ) �52 8
LUWASA (Lindi, TZ) ��7 7
MUWASA (Musoma, TZ) �07 6
GWCL (Ghana) ��0 5
CWSC (Chipata, Zambia) �46 �8
SWSC (Swaziland) �04 �
JTWSSSE (Jimma, Ethiopia) ��4 2
Utility Name Collection ratio (%) Collection period (months)
7�
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
On average, most utilities are only able to collect about 7� percent of their billed amounts, and it takes an average of eight months to collect outstanding revenues. There is little variation in average performance between regions. In addition the performance of this sample of African utilities is not substantially different from other world regions, such as ECA and EAP where utilities report an average collection ratio of 88 and 89 percent and a collection period of seven and eight months, respectively.
Figures 2.40-2.45 show individual utility performance on collection indicators. Based on the performance of the top 25 percent of all utilities, reasonable cut-off points for identifying strong performers are 9� percent and � months for collection ratio and collection period respectively. The target for collection period is consistent with the best practice level for developing countries as proposed by Tynan and Kingdom (2002). A few utilities report collection ratios of over �00 percent -whichmaysimplyreflectadrivetocollectarrears from earlier periods. Table 2.3 lists the utilities that report collection rations above �00 percent.
In the Southern region, CWSC (Chipata, Zambia) reports a collection ratio of �46 percent, but data on collection period suggests that it takes the utility �8 months to collect its outstanding revenues. The same applies to SOUWASA (Songea, Tanzania) which reports a collection ratio
of �52 percent and a collection period of 8 months. KIWASCO (Kisumu) reports a collection ratio of �00 percent, but data on collection period suggests that the utility takes �7 months to collect its outstanding bills. This implies that the reported good performance may actually be in collection of arrears rather than actual bills issued in a particular period.
For purposes of identifying strong and weak performers the two indicators - collection ratio and collection period - should be examined together. Only one utility (HWSSSA, Harar Ethiopia) in the Eastern region then emerges as a strong performer on collections (see Figures 2.40 and 2.41). However, even at this level of performance on collections, the utility barely covers its operating costs. In such a case, an increase in tariff above the current level (average US$0.26) might be warranted. Similarly, in the Western region, only SDE (Senegal) would be considered a good performer based on collections indicators as it collects 99 percent of its billed revenues in under three months. The good performers on collections in the Southern region are Bloem water (S.Africa), Stellenbosch (S.Africa) and NRWB (Mzuzu, Malawi).
Finally, the review undertaken during the regional workshops showed that in many countries public sector entities accounted for a significant part of uncollected bills.This emerged as a systemic issue requiring structural reform related to: (i) who has
74
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.40: Bill collection ratios for utilities in the Eastern region
74
75
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.41: Collection period for utilities in the Eastern region
76
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.42: Bill collection ratios for utilities in the Western region
77
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.43: Collection periods for utilities in the Western region
their water paid for by the State, (ii) how payment for water bills is provided for in state budgets, (iii) whether payments are made off the top from treasury or left to the discretion of the entities; and (iv) who has the authority to disconnect delinquent accounts. The workshops showed that all successful reformers had tackled these issues and there was significant demandfor knowledge exchanges on this subject.
2.1.3 Overall efficiency indicator
The discussion on financial performancetakes a partial look at different aspects of operational performance with some utilities performing well on some indicators and worse on others. It is however difficult to tell which ones are the mostefficientandwecannotreachanyoverallconclusions on performance. One way of providing a global indication of utility
78
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.44: Bill collection ratios for utilities in the Southern region
79
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.45: Collection periods for utilities in the Southern region
80
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
efficiency is to compare the volume ofwater for which the utility collects revenue and the total volume it produces. This comparison leads to a formulation of an overall efficiency indicator (OEI) givenas:[(�-NRW)* Collection ratio] in percentage. A total of 78 utilities had data to enable the calculation of OEI. Figure 2.46 shows the regional variation. The results clearly showtheextentofinefficienciesinAfricanwater utilities. On average, all utilities in the sample get revenue for only half (52 percent) of the water they produce. Eastern utilities perform slightly worse than the other two regions, because of the generally higher levels of water losses in the region.
Figure 2.46: Regional variation in utility overall efficiency
Individual utility data presented in Figures 2.46-2.48 confirms this picture. In theEastern region OEI ranges from as low as 7 percent (KWSC, Khartoum, Sudan) to 8� percent (Welkite, Ethiopia). Based on the performance of the top quartile of all utilities, a reasonable target for OEI for this sample is 66 percent; utilities should be able to get revenue for at least 66 percent of the water theyproduce.This is theefficiencyachieved by the top 25 percent of all utilities in the sample. Based on this criterion, only 20 utilities (out of 78) can be considered efficientoverall.TheEasternandSouthernregions are each represented by six utilities in this group, while the Western region is represented by eight utilities. These results
8�
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.47: Overall efficiency indicator (Western region)
8�
82
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.48: Overall efficiency indicator (Southern region)
8�
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
pointtotheneedforutilitiestosignificantlyreduce NRW levels and also improve their collectionefficiency.
2.1.4 Quality of MIS
Improving the quality of utility management information systems is a key priority of the WOP- Africa program. Without a strong MIS, utilities cannot carry out monitoring and evaluation (M&E) or performance assessments, neither can they participate in benchmarking initiatives aimed at continuous improvement. A key indicator for judging the quality of a utility’s MIS is the level of response to the questions in the USAQ tool used in this assessment exercise. This is considered a fair indicator because the USAQ tool required utilities to provide a huge amount of data and in a
highly disaggregated format. It is assumed that only utilities with well functioning information systems would be able to provide such data on demand5. However, the indicator does not tell us anything about the quality of information provided and therefore may not be a reliable indicator of a well-functioning MIS. At the moment it is the only available indicator for gauging whether a utility has some sort of information system for collecting relevant operational data and whether that system is responsive. Other indicators used include presence of internal M&E systems and involvement in benchmarking, both of which assume a functioning MIS.
The USAQ response rate indicator applies to only those utilities that provided data through the USAQ tool. We have no way
Figure 2.49: Overall efficiency indicator (Southern region)
5Not all utilities are expected to have data in all the categories. For example, some utilities are not required to collect data on assets since the responsibility may lie with an asset holding company (e.g. in Senegal, Cote d’lvoire and Kenya)
84
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.51: USAQ response rate for utilities in the Western region
Figure 2.50: Regional variation in mean USAQ response rate
84
85
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.52: USAQ response rate for utilities in the Eastern region
85
86
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
of assessing the quality of MIS for those utilities whose data was obtained from external sources. Figure 2.49 shows the regional variation in the mean USAQ response rate. On average, all utilities provided responses to about 85 percent of the questions in the USAQ tool. There areno significantdifferences in responserate between regions, suggesting that all
regions may generally be at the same level in terms of the quality of management information systems.
However, a closer look at individual utility response rates provides some rough indication of which utilities have relatively well-functioning MIS and which ones would certainly need help in strengthening
Figure 2.53: USAQ response rate for utilities in the Southern region
87
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
their systems. This individual utility data is presented in Figures 2.50-2.52. In the Eastern region (Figure 2.51), utilities such as KSWC (Khartoum, Sudan) and ONEAD (Djibouti) have very low response rates compared to the rest. It is likely that this level of performance is a manifestation of inadequate or non-existent utility management information systems. The same applies to SWSC (Mbabane,
Swaziland) and Bloem water (S.Africa) in the Southern region, as well as Lagos water (Nigeria) in the Western region. Zambian utilities have the highest USAQ response rates (above 95 percent). This could be due to the presence of a relatively strong regulatory system whose reporting requirements puts pressure on utilities to strengthen their information systems.
KIWASCO (Kisumu, Kenya) Yes Yes No No No
KEWASCO (Kericho, Kenya) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
IRUWASA (Iringa, TZ) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
MWSC (Mombasa, Kenya) No No No No No
MUWASA (Moshi, TZ) Yes Yes Yes No Yes
MTUWASA (Mtwara, TZ) Yes Yes No No No
HWSSA (Harar, Ethiopia) No No No No No
NWSC (Uganda) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
ONEA (Burkina Faso) Yes No Yes No No
GWCL (Ghana) Yes No No Yes No
LWSC (Liberia) Yes No No Yes No
CWSC (Chipata, Zambia) Yes Yes No No Yes
LWSC (Lusaka, Zambia) Yes Yes No Yes No
KWSC (Ndola, Zambia) No Yes No Yes Yes
NWWSSCL (Solwezi, Zambia) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
WASA (Maseru, Lesotho) Yes No No No Yes
Midvaal (S. Africa) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Table 2.4: Profile of utilities with high USAQ response rates (above 94 percent)
In country
Utility name M&E systems Benchmarking experience
Membership of benchmarking group
Within utility
In region
88
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Table 2.4 gives some information on the profileofutilitieswithrelativelyhighUSAQresponse rates (above 94 percent). With the exception of MWSC (Mombasa, Kenya) and HWSSA (Harar, Ethiopia), all the remaining utilities have functioning M&E systems as well as benchmarking experience - which further explains their relatively good scores on the quality of MIS indicator.
Beyond inter-utility comparisons it is also worthwhile examining the level of response to each section of the USAQ in order to identify focus areas for strengthening utility information systems.
Figure 2.54: Mean response rate for USAQ section
Figure 2.53 shows the mean response rate for each section of the USAQ. All the data-intensive sections (e.g. technical information, operational performance and customer care) have mean response rates slightly above 80 percent. Although this is not necessarily a poor level of response, there is certainly room for improvement. Availability of data under these areas is critical for any benchmarking exercise. The section on infrastructure development and asset management appears to be the most poorly responded to (mean response rate = 79 percent) reflecting a need forsupport and capacity building in the area of utility asset management.
89
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Table 2.5: Proportion of utilities making the best performer group
2.1.5 Summary of operational performance
The comparison of operational performance provides insight not only on performance differences between utilities but also on regional differences. Moreover, based on the proportion of utilities making it to the best performing groups for each operational indicator (where applicable), we can identify areas where utilities are doing relatively well and areas where there is weakness. Table 2.5 and Figure 2.54 summarize the performance outlook for the entire dataset based on the set
of operational indicators discussed in th previous sections. Table 2.5 shows, for each key indicator, the proportion of utilities making the best performer group from each region. This information gives us a rough idea of the areas where utilities are generally performing well or poorly and the regional differences in performance. Figure 2.54 on the other hand shows box-plots for each key operational indicator, showing the maximum, upper quartile, median, lower quartile and minimum values. The upper quartile values represent the performance targets used in identifying best performance within the sample.
Eastern Western Southern Eastern Western Southern
Water coverage (%) 90 42 �6 40 �9% 8% 55%
Sewerage coverage (%) 82 �� 5 22 0% 0% 50%
Metering level (%) �00 27 �4 �4 ��% 50% 4�%
NRW (%) 25 �8 24 �6 �0% 46% ��%
NRW (m�/km/day) �2 �5 �9 26 �7% 42% ��%
NRW (m�/con/day) 0.� �6 2� �4 25% �9% �8%
OCCR (based on billings) �.2 �2 24 �5 �9% 25% 2�%
OCCR (based on actual revenues) �.2 28 �2 25 0% �7% 8%
Collection ratio (%)/period (month) 9�/� 27 25 26 4% 8% �2%
Overallefficiencyindicator(%) 66 34 20 24 18% 40% 25%
Indicator Proportion of utilities making the best performer group (%)
Valid sampleTarget for best performance*
* Target is based on the performance of the top quartile (25 percent) of all utilities in the sample
90
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.55: Box-plot for key technical and financial indicators (all utilities)
The spread of each box-plot (that is, the distance between the upper and lower quartiles) gives us an idea of how much room or opportunity there is for utility exchanges between good performers and poor performers.
From the Table 2.5 we note that service coverage is a weak area for utilities in the East and Western region. Only eight percent of the utilities from the Western region make it to the best performing group for water coverage and none for sewerage coverage. Similarly, Eastern utilities have
only �9 percent of utilities making it to the best performing group for water and none for sewerage. Aabout half of the utilities from the Southern region make it to the best performing group for both water and sewerage coverage, suggesting that utilities from the region generally perform better on both these indicators.
It is also clear from Table 2.5 that sewerage coverage generally lags behind water in all the regions. However, as shown in Figure 2.54 it is one of the areas where there is greatest opportunity for collaboration. Given the renewed focus on achieving the
9�
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
MDGs targets for water and sanitation access on the continent, the evolving WOP-Africa program is well placed to connect utilities and facilitate knowledge sharing and capacity building, especially withregardtoimprovingtechnicalefficiencyandimprovingcashflows-areasthatarecritical to improving service coverage.
Utilities in the Western region generally performbetteronkeytechnicalefficiencyindicators compared to the other regions. Half of the utilities in the Western region make it to the best performing groups for both metering and NRW indicators while utilities from the Eastern region are among the weakest on these two indicators. The average level of NRW in the Eastern region is around �8 percent while metering coverage is only 68 percent on average
The data shows that non-revenue water is a major weakness for most utilities in the sample. In many systems as much as a third of production is lost through physical and commercial losses. Part of this ‘lost’ water can be retrieved by appropriate technical and managerial actions. It can thenbeusedtomeetcurrentlyunsatisfieddemand (and hence increase coverage and revenues to the utility) or to defer future capital expenditures to provide additional supply (and hence reduce costs to the utility). However, only a few utilities (mainly from the Western region) perform relatively well on all measures of non-revenue water (see Table 2.�). As such, opportunities for knowledge exchange may be limited as further illustrated in Figure 2.54.
Finally, in addition to the NRW challenge, most utilities in the sample are currently struggling to cover even their operating costs. In all regions less than half of the utilities can be considered financiallyviable, and for many, poor performance on collections seems to be the main problem. For instance, 2� percent of utilities from the Southern region appear to perform better on the OCCR value calculated using billed revenues.
But when you consider the OCCR value based on actual revenues, the proportion of financially viable utilities drops to 8percent. Similarly, none of the utilities in the Eastern region can be considered financiallyviableduetopoorperformanceon collection. As noted earlier, it appears that the single most important step utilities can take towards financial viability is toimprove their collection efficiency. This isone of the areas where collaboration and knowledge exchange between utilities can be encouraged. Other operational areas where exchange and collaboration is possible are summarised in Box 2.1.
2.2 Human Resources Utilisation and Development
2.2.1 Human resources utilisation
Personnel costs in many water utilities in developing countries constitute a larger cost factor than usually recognised, draining resources from maintenance and other necessary operating expenses and
92
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Box 2.�: Possible themes for utility cooperation in the area of operational performance
A. Service coverage
• How to achieve accelerated progress in increasing access to WSS and to achieve the MDGs
• Best practices on monitoring and reporting access levels
B. Metering
• Best practices on increasing metering coverage
• Best practices on meter management and maintenance
C. Non-revenue water
• Best practices on water loss monitoring, hydraulic balance
• Best practices on leak detection and repair
• Network maintenance and management, including meter maintenance
• Best practices on improving customer databases and dealing with illegal connections/customers
D. Collection efficiency
• Bestpracticesonimprovingcollectionefficiency
• Reduction of arrears/ bad debts (how do get customers to pay their bills on time)
• Reducing arrears among public sector/government customers
E. Quality of MIS
• Best practices on setting up and maintaining a management information system. How do we get there?
• Performance monitoring and reporting
• Linking a utility’s MIS with that of a national regulator (where applicable)
imposing costs on customers. Efficientutilisation of human resources is therefore a critical performance area for utilities. Two key indicators were used to assess theefficiencyofhumanresourceutilisationin participating utilities:
• staff productivity index - expressed as number of staff per �000 connections; and
• personnel or labor costs - expressed as a ratio to total operating costs
(excluding depreciation and debt service). Depreciation and debt service are excluded due to lack of uniformity intreatingrevaluationoffixedassetsand to facilitate comparison of utilities with and without debt service obligations.
Staff productivity index (SPI) is an important measure of the efficient use of humanresources in a utility. It relates the number of staff to the number of connections, with good performance manifested by a low
9�
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
staff per�000 connection ratio while a high ratiomayindicateinefficientuseofhumanresources. However, the SPI ratio alone does not provide a satisfactory picture of the situation. To complete the analysis of staff productivity we must examine personnel/labor costs as well.
Data on staff productivity was available for a total of �05 utilities while only 86 utilities had data on labor costs. Figure 2.55 shows the regional variation in the mean SPI ratio and labor costs in proportion to operating costs. There is little regional variation in both the mean SPI ratio and the proportion of labor costs. However, on average, utilities from the Western region have a slightly higher SPI ratio (mainly driven by Nigerian utilities) which may reflect looseemploymentpractices,oftena result of political interference in the water
Figure 2.56: Regional variation in staff productivity
company’s operations. In addition, utilities from the Southern region have lower SPI ratios but a relatively high ratio of labor costs to operating costs. This suggests that utilities in the Southern region may have higher average salaries and wages than one would expect.
Individual utility performance on staff productivity is presented in Figures 2.56-2.58. A frequently used international benchmark for staff productivity is two employees per thousand connections but Tynan and Kingdom (2002) propose abenchmarkoffiveemployeesper1000connections for developing countries. The SPI ratios achieved by the top 25 percent of all utilities in the sample suggest that a target of 7 or fewer staff per �,000 connections is achievable. Based on this level of performance five utilities from
94
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.57: Staff productivity indices for utilities in the Eastern region
95
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.58: Staff productivity indices for utilities in the Western region
95
96
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.59: Staff productivity indices for utilities in the Southern region
96
97
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
the Eastern region can be said to be performing well. The Southern region dominates the best performing group with �7 utilities followed by the Western region with 7 utilities. The data also shows that, in general, utilities classified in the bestperforming group for SPI ratios have lower labor costs to operating costs ratios.
2.2.2 Human resource development
The WOP-Africa program considers human resource development a top priority consistent with the argument that achieving the MDGs not only requires building new infrastructure but also complementary investments in human capital. Investments in human capital include strengthening the technical and management capacity of utilities through
Figure 2.60: Regional variation in staff training participation
staff training programmes. For this reason, a key indicator of utility performance on human resource development is the staff training participation rate, that proportion of staff that have participated in at least one training event.
A total of 7� utilities provided data on staff participation in training. Figure 2.59 summarises the regional variation in staff training participation rate. On average, utilities in the Eastern region have slightly more of their staff participating in training than those in the Western and Southern regions but there is little difference in the training days per employee across the three regions.
Individual utility performance on staff training participation rate is presented in Figures 2.60-2.62. The rate achieved by the top 25 percent of all utilities in the
98
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.6�: Staff training participation rate for utilities in the Eastern region
98
99
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.62: Staff training participation rate for utilities in the Western region
99
�00
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.6�: Staff training participation rate for utilities in the Southern region
Table 2.6: Proportion of utilities making the best performer group
Eastern Western Southern Eastern Western Southern
Staff Productivity Index 7 �7 �� �7 �4% 2�% 46%
Staff Training Participation Rate (%) �0 27 28 �7 26% 25% 24%
Indicator Proportion of utilities making the best performer group (%)
Valid sampleTarget for best performance*
* Target is based on the performance of the top quartile (25 percent) of all utilities in the sample
�0�
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
sample suggests that a target of �0 percent per year is achievable. Based on this level of performance a total of �5 utilities can beclassifiedinthebestperforminggroup.Eastern and Western regions dominate this group with seven utilities each. Only four utilities (CWA Mauritius; NWSSCL Solwezi, Zambia; Midvaal, S.Africa; and Bloem Water, S.Africa) from the Southern region can be considered good performers on staff training.
2.2.3 Summary of performance on human resources utilisation and development
Table 2.6 shows the proportion of utilities making the best performer group from each region for both the staff productivity and training indicators. From Table 2.6 we note that staff productivity is a weak area for utilities in the Eastern and Western
regions; less than half of the utilities in these regions make it to the best performer group. Utilities in the Southern region perform relatively well with close to half making it to the best performing group on this indicator.Therefore,efficiencyofstaffutilisation is another area where utilities from the Eastern and Western regions can learn from their counterparts in the South.
On the other hand, staff training seems to be weak in all the regions. Less than half of the utilities in all regions make it to the best performing group. This is an important area of the proposed WOP-Africa program. In order to foster a vibrant water sector in Africa, the skill levels and number of skilled people engaging in the sector needs to increase dramatically and to be spread out amongst all the organisations and groups involved in the sector. To this end, WOP-Africa will catalyse and encourage
Box 2.2: Possible themes for utility cooperation on human resources utilization and development
F. Staff productivity
• Staff performance management systems
• Staff performance contracts
• Effective change management (staff work culture)
G. Staff training
• ImplementinganHRD/staffingtrainingpolicy
• Linking training centers (either run by a utility or serving many) into a network
• Best practices on in-house training vs. outsourcing of training
• Linking a utility’s MIS with that of a national regulator (where applicable)
�02
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
utility-to-utility exchange of know-how and networking on training and human resource development.
Possible themes for exchange are summarised in Box 2.2.
In the face of gross overstaffing andpersonnel expenditures out of line as a share of total production, many reform drives have focused on ‘rightsizing’ and upgrading the manpower through manpower reduction programs, such as early pension schemes and retrenchment, as well as retraining. As utility employees are relatively better off than other public workers and given their generally high degree of unionization, ‘rightsizing’ programs have been one of the most challenging aspects of water utility reform. The recent regional workshops
Figure 2.64: Regional variation in continuity of service
have shown that there is interest in sharing experience on this theme.
2.3 Customer Care
A utility’s responsiveness to its customers is usually indicated by the quality of services it provides. However, quality of service has several dimensions - water availability, water quality, water pressure, and customer relations. But the only ones for which the sample provides sufficientdata is water availability as captured by the continuity of service (hours of service a day) - and customer relations - as captured by the number of customer complaints and response time it takes to address complaints.
�0�
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.65: Average hours of service for utilities in the Eastern region
�0�
�04
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.66: Average hours of service for utilities in the Western region
�04
�05
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.67: Average hours of service for utilities in the Southern region
�05
�06
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
2.3.1 Continuity of service
This is defined in terms of the averagehours of service a day. This is an important customer indicator because being connected to the network does not necessarily mean a customer is receiving good quality water when they need it. Inefficienciesresultingfromthepoorstateof repair of water infrastructure, institutional weaknessesandalackoffinancialviability,oftenmakeitdifficulttohavepotablewaterflowinginthepipes.Dataonaveragehoursof service was available for �06 utilities. Figure 2.63 shows the regional averages.
Individual utility data is presented in Figures 2.64-2.66. Utilities from the Southern region provide on average 2� hours of service to their customers while those in the Eastern and Western regions provide an average of �8 and �� hours of service respectively. The low average for the Western region is heavily skewed by Nigerian utilities many of which provide less than �0 hours of service to their customers.
The average hours of service achieved by the top 25 percent of all utilities in the sample suggest that a target of 24 hours a day is achievable. Based on this level of performance, a total of �9 utilities can be classifiedinthebestperforminggroup.TheSouthern region overwhelmingly dominates the best performing group with �9 utilities while Eastern and Western regions each have �0 utilities in this group.
2.3.2 Customer complaints
Complaints are commonly used as an indicator of the quality of interaction with customers. Data on customer complaints was available for a total 5� utilities in the sample and this showed very clear differences in customer complaint levels, with utilities in the South and Eastern regions having generally higher levels compared to utilities in the Western region. However, while complaints are relatively easy to track, they do not tell us much about the performance of a utility on customer relations. Customers may have become accustomed to poor service and do not complain. In other instances itmaybedifficult forcustomerstoreportcomplaints.For these reasons, it is sometimesdifficulttoderiveanymeaningfrom the number of complaints indictor.
A very low number of complaints might indicate a utility not in touch with its customers, where relatively little interaction occurs between the utility and its customers. Such a situation should raise concern regarding other performance indicators (e.g. hours of service) that show performance levels that should be generating complaints. The other extreme is very high levels of complaints where there is dissatisfaction and customers are expressing it. Between these extremes lies an acceptable level of interaction where customers aregenerally satisfiedbut therealities of not being able keep everyone happy, continues to generate interactions.
�07
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Utilities should aim for this middle ground which for this dataset, is 5� complaints per �000 connections. Utilities reporting less than 2� complaints per connection per
Figure 2.68: Average time to respond to a complaint (for utilities in the Eastern region)
year (lower quartile) may possibly be out of touch with their customers while complaint levels exceeding �40 (upper quartile) may indicate customer dissatisfaction.
�08
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.69: Average time to respond to a complaint (for utilities in the Western region)
We cannot classify utilities into best and worst performing groups based on these values because a desirable level of complaints will ultimately depend on local cultural and social expectations.
It can be urged that a more useful indicator for assessing customer service is not the number of complaints per se but rather the time it takes for a utility to address
the complaint. Out of the 68 utilities that provided data on customer complaints, 57 utilities also provided data on the average time it takes to address a complaint. This data is summarised in Figures 2.67- 2.69. The average time achieved by the top 25 percent of all utilities in the sample suggests that a target of 24 hours to address a complaint is achievable. Based on this level of performance, a total of 25 utilities
�09
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Table 2.7: Proportion of utilities making the best performer groups on customer care
Eastern Western Southern Eastern Western Southern
Continuity of service (hrs) 24 �2 4� �� ��% 24% 58%
24 22 2� �2 77% 4�% 42%
Indicator Proportion of utilities making the best performer group (%)
Valid sampleTarget for best performance*
* Target is based on the performance of the top quartile (25 percent) of all utilities in the sample
Figure 2.70: Average time to respond to a complaint (for utilities in the Southern region)
Average response time to address a complaint (hrs)
��0
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
can be classified in the best performinggroup. The Eastern region dominates the best performing group with seventeen utilities. The Western region is represented by �0 utilities while the Southern region has fiveutilitiesinthegroup.
2.3.3 Summary of performance on customer care
Table 2.7 shows the proportion of utilities making the best performer group from each region for both customer care indicators -continuity of service and average response time to address a complaint. From the Table 2.7 we note that Western and Eastern utilities generally perform poorly on the continuity of service indicator with only 25 percent and �� percent making it to the best performer group as compared to 58 percent for the Southern regions. However, on responsiveness to customer complaints the Eastern region has a much higher number (77 percent) of utilities in the best performing group compared to the other
Box 2.�: Possible themes for utility cooperation on customer care issues
H. Customer care
• Best practices in customer complaints monitoring and response (e.g. the ‘Cockpit’ in SDE Senegal)
• Conducting customer satisfaction surveys and using the results to improve the customer experience
• Decentralized vs. centralized customer care centers
• Call center technology – measuring and improving call center performance
• Settingupaflexiblebillpaymentsystemsforcustomers
• Marketing utility services – what utility managers need to know about their customers
two regions. Again, there seems to be a possible opportunity for exchanges in this area. Examples of customer care issues on which to base inter-utility collaboration and exchange are summarised in Box 2.3 below.
2.4 Infrastructure Development
The level of infrastructure development was assessed using a number of asset indicators as well as capital expenditure levels. The capital intensity of a utility is indicated by the gross fixed asset valueper capita served. Unfortunately, utilities provided very limited information about asset values and until more emphasis is placed on this item the values derived must be treated with caution. For this reason gross fixed asset values are notpresented in this report.
The level of capital investment was assessed using the average capital expenditure
���
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.7�: Average capital expenditure in the period 200�-2006 (for Eastern region utilities)
per connection indicator. Since capital spendingofutilitiescanchangesignificantlyfrom year to year, this indicator was based on the total capital expenditure of the utility during the last five years (2001 - 2006),dividedby five toget theannual averagecapital expenditure and then divided by the number of connections in the current year (2006). A total of 52 utilities provided data oncapitalexpenditureduring the lastfiveyears. This data is summarized in Figures 2.70-2.72. Capital expenditure ranges
from as low as US$0.� per connection (SEG, Guinea) to as high as US$ 659 per connection (ONEA, B.Faso).
Utilities that are spending the most per connection per year are Songea (TZ) and NWSC (Uganda) in the Eastern region; ONEA (Burkina Faso), CRSWBL (Nigeria), SPEN (Niger), TdE (Togo) and PSWB (Nigeria) in the Western region; and NWWSSCL (Solwezi, Zambia), LWSC (Lusaka, Zambia) and WASA
��2
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.72: Average capital expenditure in the period 200�-2006 (for Western region utilities)
���
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 2.7�: Average capital expenditure in the period 200�-2006 (for Southern region utilities)
(Lesotho) in the Southern region. It can be noted that the utilities that are spending more per connection per year on capital improvements are not necessarily national utilities, although they might be expected to have better access to financing thanmunicipal utilities. However, small city or municipal utilities generally have the lowest
capital expenditures per connection, suggesting that access to financingmaybe a major constraint to performance improvement for smaller utilities.
��4
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
��4
��5
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Inadequate water and sanitation service provision to the urban poor remains a serious problem in many African
countries. Poor households typically account for the largest share of the increase in urban population. Most live in densely populated inner city slums or in unplanned peri-urban settlements which are not served or out of the reach of water utilities. Poor households within a utility’s service area cannot afford traditional piped service and have come to rely on shared connections (yard taps) or resale (HH to HH or kiosks) or, when they are available, public standpipes. Unless they rise to the challenge of expanding capacity to servepoorurbanHH,utilities risk findingthemselves in a situation where they will reach only a fraction of population of the cities which it is their mission to serve.
In most urban settings a pipe network is the cheapest and most effective way of supplying water - whether through individual house connections, shared yard connections or kiosks. However, as shown by the coverage data presented in Section 2.1.1, the share of households covered by pipe networks is still unacceptably low, especially among utilities in the East and Western regions. Part of the problem is that services are unaffordable to most urban residents, especially those living in informal settlements where poverty is on
the increase. To capture the differences in affordability of services provided by the utilities, two key indicators were used:
• Domestic water connection charge - expressed as a percentage of GNI per capita; and
• Monthly household bill for a household consuming 6m3 per month - expressed as percentage of monthly GNI per capita.
Tariffs and connection charges need to be put in the perspective of affordability. Household income data, however, is not easy to obtain. These indicators are therefore expressed as a proportion of per capita Gross National Income (GNI), which reflects annual income. The GNI(Atlas method based) will be for the whole countryandnotreflectlocalvariations,butis the most appropriate consistent measure currently available for most countries.
3.1 Affordability of domestic water connection charges
For many households, especially those in informal settlements, the cost of connecting to a piped network can be a significant financial hurdle. Comparingconnection charges provides insights into the level to which this obstacle has been
�. Services to the Poor and Informal Settlements
��6
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure �.� Domestic water connection charges as a share of per capita GNI (Eastern region utilities)
addressed. A total of 70 utilities provided data on connection charges and this is summarised in Figures 3.1-3.3. The data expressed as a percentage of per capita GNI, shows that for some of the
utilities the connection charges are clearly unaffordable. In some cases they exceed �0 percent of per capita GNI.
The lack of trunk infrastructure as well as the connection fee is often what prevents
��7
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure �.2 Domestic water connection charges as a share of per capita GNI (Western region utilities)
��7
��8
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
people from obtaining piped water supplies - once connected consumers can usually pay their water bills. Based on the performance of the top 25 percent of all utilities in the sample it appears utilities should charge connection fees equivalent to no more than two percent of per capita GNI. With this fee level, only �6 utilities can be considered to be doing relatively well on this indicator. Connection charges
are generally lower among utilities in the Eastern region.
3.2 Affordability of utility water bills
Monthly household bill for a household consuming 6m3 per month: A total of 87 utilities provided data on this indicator.
Figure �.�: Domestic water connection charges as share of per capita GNI (Southern region utilities)
��9
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure �.4: Regional variation in affordability for a consumption level of 6m�/month
However, a total of �6 South African utilities were excluded from the analysis because they cannot be fairly compared with other utilities due to the well known free basic water policy (FBW) in South Africa. The FBW policy entitles all people to a free lifeline supply of 6m� of water per household per month. The policy has not been implemented in any other African country other than South Africa. For all other utilities (7� utilities), Figure 3.4 gives the regional variation in affordability for a consumption level of 6m�/month. The data shows the annual cost of consuming 6m�/month as a share of per capita GNI is slightly higher in the Eastern region compared to the other regions.
A look at individual utility data further reveals the differences in affordability levels. The data is summarised in Figures 3.5-3.7. The data shows that utility customers in Africa pay an equivalent of 0.4-�8 percent of monthly per capita GNI. These results show the burden on customers and underline the need for utilities to cut costs. Based on the performance of the top 25 percent of all utilities in the sample, it appears households should pay an equivalent of no more than � percent of per capita GNI for 6m� of water per month. With this fee level, only �8 utilities (out of 7�) can be considered to be doing relatively well on this indicator.
�20
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure �.5: Monthly water bill for HH consuming 6m�/month as a share of per capita GNI (Eastern)
�2�
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure �.6: Monthly water bill for HH consuming 6m�/month as a share of per capita GNI (Western)
�22
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure �.7: Monthly water bill for HH consuming 6m�/mon as a share of per capita GNI (Southern)
3.3 Summary of performance on affordability indicators
Table 3.1 shows the proportion of utilities making the best performing groups on key affordability indicators. On connection charges Western utilities perform slightly better than utilities from the other two regions. Twenty six percent of Western utilities make the best group compared to
20 percent for Eastern and �8 percent for Southern utilities.
Although Western utilities generally have lower connection charges, poor customers connecting to their networks are likely to pay a much higher bill. Utilities in the Southern region (even with the exclusion South Africa) perform much better in keeping the
�2�
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Box �.�: Possible themes for utility cooperation on serving the poor and informal settlements
I. Services to the poor and informal settlements
• Best practices on serving the poor and informal settlement strategies (e.g. policies, dedicated unit within the utility, service options, social connections, kiosks, delegated management models and partnerships)
• Tariff reviews, subsidy targeting, cross subsidies
• Adaptation of service levels to suit the urban poor
• Partnerships with alternative service providers
• Using water and sanitation services as entry points for slum upgrading and coordination with other stakeholders
monthly bill for poor households below � percent. Opportunities therefore exist for collaboration between utilities, especially on strengthening pro-poor policies and strategiesthatclearlydefinefinancingandoperational mechanisms, as well as tariffs that ensure equitable provision of services to all urban residents. Priority issues for exchange are summarised in Box 3.1 below.
It should be noted that most utilities are already engaged in some initiatives to
improve services to the urban poor. For instance, 87 percent of utilities reported that they were engaged in formal partnerships with alternative service providers (mainly water kiosk operators), while �8 percent have formal partnerships with NGOs and other community-based organisations involved providing services to informal settlements.
Furthermore, 65 percent of utilities claim to have a pro-poor strategy and of these 20 percent report service improvements to
Table 3.1: Proportion of utilities making the best performer groups on affordability
2 20 �6 �5 20% 26% �8%
� �0 27 �� �7% 26% 46%
Indicator Proportion of utilities making the best performer group (%)
Valid sampleTarget for best performance*
* Target is based on the performance of the top quartile (25 percent) of all utilities in the sample
Monthly bill for a consumption level of 6m�/month as % of monthly GNI per capita
Connection charges as % of GNI per capita
�24
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
the urban poor as a result of implementing their strategies. A sizeable number of utilities (�� percent) have running social connection programmes but few (22 percent) have a dedicated peri-urban unit to manage the delivery of services to
Table 3.2: List of utilities with dedicated units/departments focusing on services to the urban poor
Utility full name Short name Country Region
Kisumu Water & Sewerage Company KIWASCO Kenya Eastern
Naivasha Water , Sewerage & Sanitation Company Ltd. NAIVAWASS Kenya Eastern
Shinyanga Urban Water & Sewerage Authority SHUWASA Tanzania Eastern
Dar es Salaam Water & Sewerage Authority DAWASA Tanzania Eastern
Mwanza Urban Water and Sewerage Authority MWAUWASA Tanzania Eastern
Dire Dawa Water Supply & Sewerage Authority DDWSSA Ethiopia Eastern
National Water and Sewerage Corporation NWSC Uganda Eastern
Plateau State Water Board PSWB Nigeria Western
Bauchi State Water Board BSWB Nigeria Western
Borno State Water Corporation BSWC Nigeria Western
OfficeNationaldel’assainissementduSenegal ONAS Senegal Western
Societe Nationale d’Exploitation et de Distribution des Eaux SONEDE Tunisia Western
Societe Des Eaux De Guinee SEG Guinea Western
Societe d’Energie et d’Eau du Gabon SEEG Gabon Western
Malawi Northern Region Water Board NRWB Malawi Southern
Mulonga Water and Sewerage Company Limited MWSC Zambia Southern
Northern Western Water Supply and Sewerage Company Limited NWWSSCL Zambia Southern
Lusaka Water & Sewerage Company Limited LWSC Zambia Southern
Kafubu Water and Sewerage Company Limited KWSC Zambia Southern
Aguas de Mozambique, S.A.R.L AdeM Mozambique Southern
the urban poor and informal settlements. Overall, there is potential for inter-utility exchange and learning innovative ways of serving the poor.
�25
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
�26
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
The foregoing performance assessment has helped identify where each participating utility lies
on key performance parameters. Clearly, there are utilities that are leading the group on specific indicators and also in termsof overall performance. There are also a number of utilities that can do better. A key assumption of the WOP-Africa program is that those participating utilities that generally lag behind in performance will be motivated to learn from others that are performing relatively well where there are any lessons to learn. Although this assessment exercise did not aim to explain the reasons for any utility’s performance level, the data provides a good starting point for utilities to identify potential learning partners based on the level of performance alone.
Moreover, as part of the assessment, utilities were each asked to identify their top three areas of strength, as well as the top three weaknesses or priority areas for learning from a better performing utility. The responses were coded into �4 categories with each weakness and each strength being allocated the same code to enable matchmaking. The results summarised in Figure 4.1 are quite revealing, particular on the potential for African utilities to learn from each other.
4. Potential for Peer-Support Partnerships
The majority of utilities (24 percent) identify non-revenue water management as their major weakness. This is fairly consistent with the performance data discussed earlier in Section 2. It is also observed that only a few utilities (8 percent) claim to be strong on non-revenue water management - a result that is again fairly consistent with the performance data discussed earlier. From these observations it would appear that African water utilities would be hard-pressedtofindamongthemselvesanotherutility to provide peer-support and share knowledge on this critical performance area. In such circumstances, it would be beneficial to look outside the region forproven expertise and experience. However, for other areas, there is enormous potential for utilities in Africa to learn from each other. In particular, there is potential for knowledge and skills transfer through collaborative arrangements between utilities that show superior performance on key indicators and those that lag behind. This potential for utility-to-utility partnerships (U2U) was also revealed during the regional workshops in which participants expressed interest formore than 100 specificmatches (seeAppendix C). As a result of the discussions and relationships forged during the regional workshops, several utilities have already initiated U2U partnerships.
�27
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Figure 4.�: Stated strength-weakness matching (all utilities)
The self-assessment also revealed that utility partnerships of this nature are not entirely new in the African water sector. There is already a rich experience of utility exchanges of experience and services. The questionnaire used in the assessment exercise captured some of these experiences. Utilities were asked whether they had been involved in any utility exchange in the past, the context under
which the exchange took place, as well as funding and contractual arrangements.
Of a total of 57 valid responses, 49 (86 percent) reported having been involved in an exchange of experiences or services with another utility. The majority of these (6� percent) have been through the utility’s own initiatives, while about half (47 percent) where conducted through the former Water
�28
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Utility Partnership (WUP). The cases of U2U reviewed by the participants showed that U2U come in many shapes and forms ranging from relatively short term interventionsfocusedonaspecificthemetobroader more comprehensive partnerships involving periodic joint meetings of their management teams and their boards as well as staff exchanges. For instance, NWSC (Uganda) has an external services unit within the organisation that provides a wide range of utility management advisory services to other utilities in the region. Collaboration already exists between NWSC and other water utilities, including Dar es Salaam (Tanzania), Lusaka (Zambia) and Nairobi (Kenya).
Figure 4.2 summarises the main areas of exchange in previous or existing
Figure 4.2: Focus areas in previous utility partnerships
partnerships. Most of the exchanges have focused on billing and customer services; performance improvement plans (PIP); training; monitoring and evaluation systems. Remarkably, a few of the utilities are already collaborating on ways to improve sanitation coverage - an area that was found lacking in many utilities.
As the WOP-Africa funding strategy continues to evolve, it is interesting to explore how previous or existing partnerships are being funded. Figure 4.3 summarises funding arrangements for past and existing U2U partnerships (based on 4� valid responses). The majority of utilities(44percent)areself-financingtheirengagements with other utilities, implying that utilities already attach a high value to such exchanges. This is an important
�29
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
finding to take on board in the evolvingWOP-Africa funding strategy.
Lastly, on the question of contractual arrangements, the majority (47 percent) of partnerships are formalised through memoranda of understanding (MoUs). A sizeable number (�5 percent) have used formal contracts with specific objectives.
Figure 4.�: Existing funding arrangements for utility partnerships
There also a number of utilities (26 percent) that report basing their exchanges on informal agreements between managers. Overall, these results suggest that there is a wealthy of experience to build on and that the WOP - Africa program should seek to enhance rather than undermine these existing arrangements.
��0
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
This report has synthesized the results of a utility performance assessment of selected African utilities and provides a basis for further development of the WOP program in Africa. The main conclusions arising from the assessment can be summarized as follows:
• The major challenge facing utilities is expanding coverage;
• Inefficienciesareamajorcauseofpooraccess to water services;
• Africa has a lot of well-performing utilities and good practices;
• There are U2U exchanges already taking place to be scaled up under WOP Africa;
• Availability and reliability of performance data is still a problem as in many cases MIS systems are either poorly designed, incomplete and/or not systematically updated.
From the data presented it is fairly clear where each utility lies on key performance indicators and the opportunities that exist for peer-support and learning. The indicators capture a broad range of performance areas for utilities but they are not comprehensive. More work is needed to provide a complete assessment of utility performance, expanding the measures to governance and accountability, tocapitalefficiencyand tobettermeasures of responsiveness to the needs of the poor. There is also need to institutionalise the assessment process, improve MIS at utility level and do more process benchmarking.
5. Conclusion Invariably, indicators tend to portray an incomplete picture of a utility’s performance as they often exclude other contributing factors such as accountability of institutions and incentives that arenotreadilyquantifiable.Moreover,utilitiesfacedifferentsocial,politicalandfinancialconstraintswhich need to be taken into account when evaluating performance. For these reasons, the indicators presented in this assessment should not be interpreted rigidly. Rather they should be taken as indicative of the strength or weakness of a utility relative to its peers.
Lastly, the results show enormous potential for scaling-up inter-utility partnerships in Africa. Contrary to popular perception, the region is not entirely short of well-performing utilities to emulate. Many countries have improved their institutional framework making it possible for utilities to shift from crisis management to strategic planning and performance improvement, which can be emulated by those that are lagging behind. However, improvement by emulation requires that utilities are found that exhibit superior performance andhaveobjectivesorspecificstrengthstomatchthe weaknesses of utilities seeking improvement. This assessment has provided some indication of who the superior performers might bebut more workisneededtoconfirmtheirabilitytoprovidepeer-support. The assessment and the WOP Africa regional workshops have also confirmedthe interest in peer-to-peer support partnerships.
���
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Tynan, N. and Kingdom, W. (2002). A water scorecard: setting performance targets for water utilities. Public Policy for the Private Sector, Note No. 242, World Bank
United Nations Development Programme (2006). Beyond scarcity: power, poverty and global water crisis. Human development report 2006, New York: United Nations Development Programme
Wolff, G. and Gleick, P (2002). The soft path for water. In: Gleick, P. (editor). The world’s water: 2002-2003. Washington DC: Island Press
References
��2
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
��2��2
���
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
AN
NE
X A
: Lis
t of a
ll pa
rtic
ipat
ing
utilit
ies
���
Util
ity fu
ll na
me
Util
ity S
hort
N
ame
Cou
ntry
Reg
ion
Prin
cip
al t
owns
/C
ities
Nat
ure
of s
ervi
ce
area
Sou
rce
of
dat
aE
xecu
tive
head
of t
he u
tility
Abi
a S
tate
Wat
er
Boa
rdA
SW
BN
iger
iaW
este
rnU
mua
hia
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QIg
we
Em
e O
gwo,
Abi
a S
tate
Wat
er B
oard
, P
MB
7��
� U
mah
ia, A
bia
Sta
te ,
Nig
eria
, Tel
: 08
0�46
�97�
5, E
mai
l:igw
eogw
o@ya
hoo.
com
�
Ada
maw
a S
tate
W
ater
Boa
rdA
SW
BN
iger
iaW
este
rnYo
laR
egio
nal u
tility
US
AQ
Cor
nelliu
s H
apsa
, Gen
eral
Man
ager
, Ada
maw
a S
tate
Wat
er B
oard
, P.M
.B.2
088,
Yol
a A
dam
awa
Sta
te, N
iger
ia. T
el: +
2�48
0�6�
56��
0, E
mai
l; en
grha
psa@
yaho
o.co
m
2
Add
is A
baba
W
ater
&
Sew
erag
e A
utho
rity
AA
WS
AE
thio
pia
Eas
tern
Add
is A
baba
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
)U
SA
QG
etac
hew
Esh
ete,
P.O
. Box
�50
5 A
ddis
A
baba
, E
thio
pia,
+25
� ��
662�
902,
+25
� ��
662�
924,
aaw
sa.h
a@et
hion
et.e
t
�
Agu
as d
e M
ozam
biqu
e,
S.A
.R.L
Ade
MM
ozam
biqu
eS
outh
ern
Map
uto
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
)U
SA
QM
anua
l Tho
maz
, Av.
Edu
ardo
Mon
dlan
e,
��52
, 5 a
ndar
CP
n 2
952,
Map
uto
Moz
ambi
que,
+25
8 2�
�02
4��/
2, +
258
2�
�246
75,m
thom
az@
agua
moz
.co.
mz
4
Akw
a Ib
om
Wat
er C
ompa
nyA
KW
AC
Ltd
Nig
eria
Wes
tern
Uyo
, Oro
n ik
t E
kpen
e, A
bak,
itu,
ik
ot A
basi
, Eke
t, E
tihan
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QBasseyEfiongAting,Akw
aIbom
Water
Com
pany
Lim
ited,
P.M
.B �
��2
, Uyo
, Akw
a Ib
om S
tate
, Nig
eria
. Tel
: 085
20�
�09,
fax:
08
520�
�09,
Em
ail:
bass
eyat
ing@
yaho
o.co
m
5
Ana
mbr
a S
tate
Wat
er
Cor
pora
tion
AN
SW
CN
iger
iaW
este
rnA
wka
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QGod
freyI.Mgb
emena,61IfiteRoadP.M.B
5028
, Aw
ka, T
el: 0
80�7
076�
75, E
mai
l: vi
chin
el@
yaho
o.co
m
6
Aru
sha
Urb
an
Wat
er a
nd
Sew
erag
e A
utho
rity
AR
WA
SA
Tanz
ania
Eas
tern
Aru
sha
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
)N
atio
nal
Reg
ulat
orA
ssi A
Mun
isi.
P.O
Box
��6
00. T
el +
255
027
2504
�5�.
Em
ail.
auw
sa@
haba
ri.co
.tz7
Bau
chi S
tate
W
ater
Boa
rdB
SW
BN
iger
iaW
este
rnB
auch
i Tow
n an
d �9
LG
A
Hea
dqua
ters
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QA
buba
kar
Ada
mu
, �5
Gom
be R
oad,
G.R
.A
P.M
.B 0
055,
Bau
chi,
2�47
7542
457,
/808
852
6408
/802
�6�2
8�7,
Em
ail:
haru
naal
fa20
0�@
yaho
o.co
m
8
��4
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Util
ity fu
ll na
me
Util
ity S
hort
N
ame
Cou
ntry
Reg
ion
Prin
cip
al t
owns
/C
ities
Nat
ure
of s
ervi
ce
area
Sou
rce
of
dat
aE
xecu
tive
head
of t
he u
tility
Bay
elsa
Sta
te
Wat
er B
oard
BY
SW
BN
iger
iaW
este
rnYe
neng
oaR
egio
nal u
tility
US
AQ
Jam
es C
. Ala
, Bay
elsa
Sta
te W
ater
Boa
rd
P.M
.B �
8, Y
enag
oa, B
ayel
sa S
tate
, Tel
: +2�
4 08
0�88
288�
4, F
ax:0
89 4
90�2
8 , E
mai
l: al
ajam
esco
rnel
ius@
yaho
o.co
m
9
Ben
ue S
tate
W
ater
Boa
rdB
SW
BN
iger
iaW
este
rnM
arku
rdi,O
tukp
o,
Gbo
ko, K
ala
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QR
A C
heng
e,B
enue
Sta
te W
ater
Boa
rd
Hea
dqua
rter
s, P
MB
�02
072,
Mak
urdi
,Nig
eria
, 04
4 5�
�608
, 080
�2�5
4796
�0
Bla
ntyr
e W
ater
B
oard
BW
BM
alaw
iS
outh
ern
Bla
ntyr
eU
rban
(sin
gle
city
/m
unic
iapl
ityU
SA
QO
wen
Kan
khul
ungo
, Bla
ntyr
e W
ater
Boa
rd,
P.O
. Box
�0�
69, C
hich
iri, B
lant
yre
�, M
alaw
i, (+
265)
0�8
7200
0, (+
265)
0�8
7202
6, b
wb@
bwb.
mw
or
okan
khul
ungo
@af
rican
-onl
ine.
net
��
Blo
em W
ater
Blo
em W
ater
Sou
th A
frica
Sou
ther
nB
loem
Font
ein,
Red
ders
burg
, Tha
ba,
Nch
u, B
otsh
elo,
D
ewet
sdor
p,E
den
burg
,Bet
hulie
,Wep
ener
,Spr
ingf
onte
in,T
rom
psbu
rg,P
hilip
polis
, Gar
iep
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QN
olen
e M
orris
, P.o
Box
�0�
2�, P
ellis
sier
8�2
2,
+05
� 40
�080
0, +
05�
4225
���,
nol
enem
@bl
oem
wat
er.c
o.za
�2
Bor
no
Sta
te W
ater
C
orpo
ratio
n
BS
WC
Nig
eria
Wes
tern
Mai
dugr
iR
egio
nal u
tility
US
AQ
Imam
Moh
amed
, Moh
amm
ed M
ongu
no
Roa
d, P
.M.B
��8
8, M
aidu
guri,
Bor
no S
tate
, +
2�4
762�
��64
, +2�
4 76
2�
60�0
��
Buk
oba
Urb
an
Wat
er a
nd
Sew
erag
e A
utho
rity
BU
WA
SA
Tanz
ania
Eas
tern
Buk
oba
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icip
ality
)N
atio
nal
Reg
ulat
orC
hagg
aka
Kal
imbi
a. P
.O B
ox 8
�. T
el +
255
028
222�
744.
Em
ail.
buw
asa@
buko
baon
line.
com
�4
Cap
e To
wn
Met
roC
ape
Tow
nS
outh
Afri
caS
outh
ern
Cap
e To
wn
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
)IB
NE
TM
r M
osai
. Tel
+27
2�
400
4859
. Em
ail.s
ipho
.m
osai
@ca
peto
wn.
gov.
za
�5
��4 ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities
��5
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Util
ity fu
ll na
me
Util
ity S
hort
N
ame
Cou
ntry
Reg
ion
Prin
cip
al t
owns
/C
ities
Nat
ure
of s
ervi
ce
area
Sou
rce
of
dat
aE
xecu
tive
head
of t
he u
tility
Cen
tral
Reg
ion
Wat
er B
oard
CR
WB
Mal
awi
Sou
ther
n20
Tow
ns, M
ajor
K
asun
gu s
chem
e,
HeadOffice
Lilin
gwe
City
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QZi
ddy
Med
i, P
rivat
e B
ag 5
9, L
ilong
we,
Mal
awi,
+ 2
65 �
757
045,
+26
5 �7
58�7
8, c
rwb@
mal
awi.n
et
�6
Cen
tral
Wat
er
Aut
horit
yC
WA
Mau
ritiu
sS
outh
ern
Isla
nd W
ide
Nat
iona
l util
ity
US
AQ
Har
ry B
oolu
ck, C
WA
Hea
dqua
rter
s, S
t. P
aul ,
ph
oeni
x, M
aurit
ius,
+2�
0 60
�500
0/ 2
5955
86,
+2�
0 69
67��
�, b
oolu
ck_h
@cw
a.in
tnet
.mu
�7
Chi
pata
Wat
er
& S
ewer
age
Com
pany
CW
SC
Zam
bia
Sou
ther
nC
hipa
taU
rban
(sin
gle
city
/m
unic
iapl
ity)
US
AQ
Ber
nard
Mw
ewa,
Chi
pata
Wat
er a
nd
Sew
erag
e C
ompa
ny, P
.O. B
ox 5
�046
4,
Chi
pata
, Zam
bia,
(+26
0) 9
7777
�807
, (+
260)
62
2�40
�, c
wsc
@za
mte
l.zm
�8
City
of W
indh
oek
Wat
er S
ervi
ces
CW
WS
Nam
ibia
Sou
ther
nW
indh
oek
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
)U
SA
QP
iet d
u P
isan
i; P
O B
ox 5
9 W
indh
oek;
26
4.6�
.290
2��4
; pdp
@w
indh
oek.
org.
na�9
Cro
ss R
iver
Sta
te
Wat
er B
oard
Li
mite
d
CR
SW
BL
Nig
eria
Wes
tern
Cal
abar
, Aka
mkp
a,
Uge
p/E
diba
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QE
lem
i B. E
tow
a,A
dmin
ista
rtiv
e H
eadq
uart
ers,
N
dide
m U
sang
Iso
Roa
d, P
MB
��7
7,
Cal
abar
, Nig
eria
. 087
2�4
24�,
2�8
9�2,
2�
80�6
7084
65, 0
87 2
�424
0, in
fo@
Crs
wat
erbo
ard.
com
,ele
mie
t@ya
hoo.
com
20
Dar
es
Sal
aam
W
ater
&
Sew
erag
e A
utho
rity
DA
WA
SA
Tanz
ania
Eas
tern
Dar
es
Sal
aam
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
)U
SA
QA
rcha
rd M
utal
emw
a, P
.O. B
ox �
57�,
M
ulan
ga/D
unga
str
eet,
Dar
es
Sal
aam
, Ta
nzan
ia, +
255
0 22
2762
479,
+22
0 2
2 27
6248
0, k
asig
ab@
daw
asa.
co.tz
2�
Dar
es
Sal
aam
W
ater
&
Sew
erag
e C
orpo
ratio
n
DA
WA
SC
OTa
nzan
iaE
aste
rnD
ar e
s S
alaa
mU
rban
(sin
gle
city
/m
unic
iapl
ity)
US
AQ
Ale
x K
aaya
, P.O
. Box
5�4
0, D
ar e
s sa
laam
Ta
nzan
ia,+
255
22 2
����
9�,+
255
22
2��9
��,a
lex.
kaay
a@da
was
co.c
om
22
Del
ta S
tate
U
rban
Wat
er
Boa
rd
DS
WB
Nig
eria
Wes
tern
Asa
baR
egio
nal u
tility
US
AQ
Jona
than
Om
otut
u, G
ener
al M
anag
er, T
el:
0802
�284
94�
2�
��5ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities
��6
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
��6
Util
ity fu
ll na
me
Util
ity S
hort
N
ame
Cou
ntry
Reg
ion
Prin
cip
al t
owns
/C
ities
Nat
ure
of s
ervi
ce
area
Sou
rce
of
dat
aE
xecu
tive
head
of t
he u
tility
Dire
Daw
a
Wat
er S
uppl
y &
Sew
erag
e A
utho
rity
DD
WS
SA
Eth
iopi
aE
aste
rnD
ire D
awa
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
US
AQ
MesfinMiligetaAlemu,P.O.B
ox
446
, Dire
Daw
a , E
thio
pis,
+25
� 25
����
496/
9�57
�495
0, +
25�
25��
� 49
87/251
1110
72,m
24
Dod
oma
Urb
an W
ater
an
d S
ewer
age
Aut
horit
y
DU
WA
SA
Tanz
ania
Eas
tern
Dod
oma
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
)N
atio
nal
Reg
ulat
orP
eter
Mok
iwa.
P.O
Box
4��
. Tel
. +25
5 02
6 2�
2 42
45.
Em
ail.
duw
asat
z@ya
hoo.
com
25
Dra
kens
tein
Lo
cal
Mun
icip
ality
Dra
kens
tein
Sou
th A
frica
Sou
ther
nP
aarl
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
)IB
NE
TM
r B
ligna
ut. T
el ‘+
27 2
� 80
7472
5.
Em
ail.h
anre
@dr
aken
stei
n.go
v.za
26
Edo
Sta
te U
rban
W
ater
Boa
rdE
SW
BN
iger
iaW
este
rnB
enin
City
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QM
onda
y U
man
e, IB
, Ow
obu
Way
, O
ff O
basu
yi
str.
P.O
Box
557
9, G
RA
Ben
in C
ity, N
iger
ia.
Tel:
0802
8445
025,
070
�540
2274
27
Eki
ti S
tate
Wat
er
Cor
pora
tion
EK
SW
CN
iger
iaW
este
rnA
do-E
kiti
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QO
luto
ba A
nise
, P
MB
5�5
0 A
do-E
kiti,
Nig
eria
, Te
l: 08
0�50
7055
2,
Em
ail:
2008
olut
oa@
yaho
o.co
m
28
Eld
oret
Wat
er &
S
anita
tion
Co.
Lt
d.
ELD
OW
AS
Ken
yaE
aste
rnE
ldor
etU
rban
(sin
gle
city
/m
unic
iapl
ityU
SA
QR
eube
n A
rap
Tiue
i, P.
O. B
ox 8
4�8
Eld
oret
, Te
l: +
254
5� 2
06�9
�5, +
254
5� 6
�556
, E
mai
l:inf
o@el
dow
as.o
rg
29
ELE
CTR
A S
.A.
- E
mpr
esa
de
Ele
ctric
idad
e e
Agu
a
ELE
CTR
A S
.AC
ape
Verd
eW
este
rnN
atio
nal U
tility
Nat
iona
l util
ity
IBN
ET
Dr.
Rui
Edu
ardo
Fer
reira
Rod
rigue
s P
ena.
Te
l + 2
�8 2
�0 �
0 �0
. E
mai
l. co
mer
cial
@el
ectr
a.cv
�0
Em
fule
ni L
ocal
M
unic
ipal
ityE
mfu
leni
Sou
th A
frica
Sou
ther
nVa
n de
r B
ijl P
ark
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
)IB
NE
TM
r D
uven
age.
Tel
.’+27
�6
986
8���
. E
mai
l.hen
nied
@em
fule
ni.g
ov.z
a��
Ene
rgie
du
Mal
i S
.A.
ED
M S
.A.
Mal
iW
este
rnB
amak
oN
atio
nal u
tility
U
SA
QS
ekou
Alp
ha D
jiete
ye; E
nerg
ie d
u M
ali
S.A
. BP
69
Bam
ako,
Mal
i; 22
� 22
2 �0
20;
22�2
22�0
60 fa
x 22
�222
84�
0; E
mai
l: sd
jitey
e@ed
msa
.net
�2
ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities
��7
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Util
ity fu
ll na
me
Util
ity S
hort
N
ame
Cou
ntry
Reg
ion
Prin
cip
al t
owns
/C
ities
Nat
ure
of s
ervi
ce
area
Sou
rce
of
dat
aE
xecu
tive
head
of t
he u
tility
Enu
gu
Sta
te W
ater
C
orpo
ratio
n
EN
SW
CN
iger
iaW
este
rnE
nugu
, Nsu
kka
and
othe
r to
wns
in
Enu
gu s
tate
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QO
brie
n O
ford
u , E
nugu
Sta
te W
ater
C
orpo
ratio
n R
oad,
GR
A E
nugu
, Nig
eria
��
Eta
blis
sem
ent
de P
rodu
ctio
n,
de T
rans
port
et
de D
istr
ibut
ion
d’E
lect
ricite
, d’
Eau
et d
e G
az
ELE
CTR
OG
AZ
Rw
anda
Eas
tern
Kig
ali
Nat
iona
l util
ity
US
AQ
Jean
Bos
co K
anye
shej
a; B
P 5
�7; K
igal
i; +
250
598
260;
jb
kany
eshe
ja@
elec
trog
az.c
o.rw
�4
eThe
kwin
i Met
roeT
hekw
ini
(S.A
frica
)S
outh
Afri
caS
outh
ern
Dur
ban
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
)IB
NE
TM
r M
swel
i. Te
l +27
��
���
����
. E
mai
l. E
dnic
kMs@
dmw
s.du
rban
.gov
.za
�5
FIPA
G N
ampu
laFI
PAG
N
ampu
laM
ozam
biqu
eS
outh
ern
Nam
pula
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
)IB
NE
T�6
FIPA
G B
eira
FIPA
G B
eira
Moz
ambi
que
Sou
ther
nB
eira
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
)IB
NE
T�7
FIPA
G P
emba
FIPA
G P
emba
Moz
ambi
que
Sou
ther
nP
emba
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
)IB
NE
T�8
FIPA
G Q
uilim
ane
FIPA
G
Qui
liman
eM
ozam
biqu
eS
outh
ern
Qui
liman
eU
rban
(sin
gle
city
/m
unic
iapl
ity)
IBN
ET
�9
Gha
na W
ater
C
ompa
ny
Lim
ited
GW
CL
Gha
naW
este
rnN
atio
nal u
tility
Nat
iona
l util
ity
US
AQ
Cob
bie
Kes
sie
JNR
, P.O
. Box
M
�94
Acc
ra, G
hana
, +2�
�2�6
620�
7,
+2�
�2�6
6�55
2,gw
cl@
afric
aonl
ine.
com
40
Gom
be S
tate
W
ater
Boa
rdG
SW
BN
iger
iaW
este
rnG
ombe
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QU
mar
B. A
hmed
, P
anta
mi R
oad,
P.B
.M 0
85
Gom
be, G
ombe
Sta
te, +
2�48
027�
2248
0,
2�48
0�64
8�9�
7, F
ax: 0
72-2
2�52
2 E
mai
l:um
ar.b
ashi
rahm
ed@
yaho
o.co
m
4�
Har
ar W
ater
S
uppl
y &
S
ewer
age
Ser
vice
s
Aut
horit
y
HW
SS
SA
Eth
iopi
aE
aste
rnH
arar
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
)U
SA
Q42
Tew
eled
a A
bdos
hi A
hmed
,P.O
Box
�98
H
arar
, Eth
iopi
a,+
25�2
5666
��60
,+
25�2
5666
665�
8,te
wel
eda@
yaho
o.co
m
��7ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities
��8
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Util
ity fu
ll na
me
Util
ity S
hort
N
ame
Cou
ntry
Reg
ion
Prin
cip
al t
owns
/C
ities
Nat
ure
of s
ervi
ce
area
Sou
rce
of
dat
aE
xecu
tive
head
of t
he u
tility
Imo
Sta
te W
ater
C
orpo
ratio
nIS
WC
Nig
eria
Wes
tern
Ow
erri
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QC
him
a K
eke,
PM
B �
�46,
Oki
gwe
road
, O
wer
ri, im
o S
tate
,Nig
eria
.Tel
: 080
�2�0
5�2,
08
0���
09��
2,
Em
ail:
imow
ater
corp
imos
tate
@ya
hoo.
com
4�
Iring
a U
rban
W
ater
Sup
ply
and
Sew
erag
e A
utho
rity
IRU
WA
SA
Tanz
ania
Eas
tern
Iring
aU
rban
(sin
gle
city
/m
unic
iapl
ityU
SA
QM
arco
Mfu
gale
, P.O
. Box
570
, Uhu
ru A
venu
e,
Iring
a, +
255
26 2
7000
�7, +
255
26 2
7000
�7,
iruw
asa2
00�@
yaho
o.co
m
44
Jiga
wa
Sta
te
Wat
er B
oard
JSW
BN
iger
iaW
este
rnD
utse
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QA
bba
Has
san,
PM
B 7
0�2
Shu
war
in D
utse
, N
iger
ia, +
2�4
80�7
005�
70, a
bbai
hass
an@
yaho
o.co
m, g
arun
gaba
s@ya
hoo.
com
45
Jim
ma
Tow
n W
ater
Sup
ply
and
Sew
erag
e S
ervi
ces
Ent
erpr
ise
JTW
SS
SE
Eth
iopi
aE
aste
rnJi
mm
aU
rban
(sin
gle
city
/m
unic
iapl
ity)
US
AQ
Abd
u M
oham
med
Fog
gi, i
mm
a P
.O. B
ox
92, +
25�9
�755
00�4
, +25
5�47
���6
509,
ab
dum
oham
med
�9@
yaho
o.co
m
46
Jiro
SY
Ran
o M
alag
asy
JIR
AM
AM
adag
asca
rE
aste
rnA
ntan
anar
ivo
Nat
iona
l util
ity
US
AQ
Ber
nhar
d R
ohm
an, �
49 R
ue
rain
andr
iam
ampa
ndry
Am
bohi
jato
vo -
�0�
Ant
anan
ariv
o.M
adag
asca
r, +
26�
20 2
2200
��/
2022
674�
5, +
26�
2022
�0�
86,
dg@
jiram
a.m
g
47
Joha
nnes
burg
W
ater
Joha
nnes
burg
W
ater
Sou
th A
frica
Sou
ther
nJo
hann
esbu
rgU
rban
(sin
gle
city
/m
unic
iapl
ity)
IBN
ET
Mr
Eal
es. T
el +
27 �
� 27
4 ��
50.
emai
l. ke
a@ia
frica
.com
48
Kad
una
Sta
te
Wat
er B
oard
KD
SW
BN
iger
iaW
este
rnK
adun
aR
egio
nal u
tility
US
AQ
Has
san
Moh
amm
ed, G
ener
al M
anag
er,
Chi
ef O
lese
gun
Oba
sanj
o ho
use
(Sec
reta
riat
Ann
ex),
Yaku
bu G
owon
Way
, P.M
.B. 2
���
Kad
una.
Nig
eria
, +2�
4 62
247
960,
/247
959,
80�
����
597,
+2�
4 62
2�79
58, k
dsw
b@ya
hoo.
com
,yar
ojam
@ya
hoo.
com
49
��8 ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities
��9
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Util
ity fu
ll na
me
Util
ity S
hort
N
ame
Cou
ntry
Reg
ion
Prin
cip
al t
owns
/C
ities
Nat
ure
of s
ervi
ce
area
Sou
rce
of
dat
aE
xecu
tive
head
of t
he u
tility
Kaf
ubu
Wat
er
and
Sew
erag
e C
ompa
ny
Lim
ited
KW
SC
Zam
bia
Sou
ther
nN
dola
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
US
AQ
Ian
Ban
da, P
lot B
�2 ,
Vita
nda
stre
et,
Tow
n C
ente
r, P.
O. B
ox 7
�278
, P
lot B
�2 ,
Ndo
la ,
Zam
bia,
+26
02�2
6224
25/6
22�6
8,
+26
02�2
622�
77, i
annz
alib
anda
@ya
hoo.
com
50
Kan
o S
tate
W
ater
Boa
rdK
nSW
BN
iger
iaW
este
rnK
ano
Met
ropo
lisR
egio
nal u
tility
US
AQ
Eng
. Yah
ya B
ala
Kar
aye,
Man
agin
g D
irect
or,
Kan
o S
tate
Wat
er B
oard
, Gid
an R
uwa,
em
or’s
pa
lace
road
, PM
B �
50�,
Kan
o C
ity, +
2�4
0 64
6�47
05, +
2�4
0 64
64�2
6�, k
nsw
b@ya
hoo.
com
, eng
ryb_
kara
ye@
yaho
o.co
.uk
5�
Kat
sina
Sta
te
Wat
er B
oard
KS
WB
Nig
eria
Wes
tern
Kat
sina
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QE
ng. A
liyu
Jari,
Kat
sina
Sta
te W
ater
Boa
rd
P.M
.B 2
027
, Kat
sina
, 2�4
654�
0940
, 2�4
654
�257
5,08
0�59
2�66
4,
Em
ail:
aliy
ujar
i@ya
hoo.
com
52
Keb
bi S
tate
W
ater
Boa
rdK
BS
WB
Nig
eria
Wes
tern
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QU
mar
Abu
baka
Ben
a, K
ebbi
Sta
te W
ater
B
oard
, No
� M
urita
la M
OH
Way
, Birn
in K
ebbi
, N
iger
ia. 0
80�0
9275
6�
5�
Ker
icho
Wat
er
and
San
itatio
n C
ompa
ny li
mite
d
KE
WA
SC
OK
enya
Eas
tern
Ker
icho
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
US
AQ
John
Che
ruiy
ot, P
. O B
ox �
�97-
2020
0 K
eric
ho, +
254
0522
0602
, ke
was
coltd
@ya
hoo.
com
54
Kha
rtou
m
Sta
te W
ater
C
orpo
ratio
n
KS
WC
Sud
anE
aste
rnK
hart
oum
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
US
AQ
Kha
lid A
li K
halid
, +24
99�2
�92�
�2,+
249�
8�7
7767
5, k
swco
p@ya
hoo.
com
, 55
Kig
oma
Urb
an
Wat
er a
nd
Sew
eraf
e A
utho
rity
KU
WA
SA
Tanz
ania
Eas
tern
Kig
oma
Nat
iona
l Reg
ulat
orN
atio
nal
Reg
ulat
orE
ng M
.J. M
agor
i. P.
O B
ox 8
�2. T
el. +
255
028
280
�62�
. Em
ail.
uwas
akig
oma@
yaho
o.co
m56
Kis
umu
Wat
er
& S
ewer
age
Com
pany
KIW
AS
CO
Ken
yaE
aste
rnK
isum
uU
rban
(sin
gle
city
/m
unic
iapl
ityU
SA
QD
avid
Ony
ango
; PO
Box
�2�
0-40
�00;
K
isum
u; 2
54.0
57.2
024�
00;
md@
kiw
asco
.co.
ke
57
��9ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities
�40
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Util
ity fu
ll na
me
Util
ity S
hort
N
ame
Cou
ntry
Reg
ion
Prin
cip
al t
owns
/C
ities
Nat
ure
of s
ervi
ce
area
Sou
rce
of
dat
aE
xecu
tive
head
of t
he u
tility
Kog
i Sta
te W
ater
B
oard
KG
SW
BN
iger
iaW
este
rnLo
koja
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QTh
eoph
ilus
Olu
kotu
n, G
ener
al M
anag
er, K
ogi
Sta
te W
ater
Boa
rd ,
P.M
.B �
059
,Lok
oja,
Kog
i S
tate
, N
iger
ia. 0
80�5
988�
90,
Em
ail:
kgw
ater
boar
d@ya
hoo.
com
58
Kw
ara
Sta
te W
ater
C
orpo
ratio
n
KW
WC
Nig
eria
Wes
tern
Ilorin
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QTu
nde
omon
iyi Y
ahay
a, P
MB
��5
8 , i
lorin
, K
war
a S
tate
, Tel
: 0��
22�
748,
080
�446
8682
59
Lago
s W
ater
C
orpo
ratio
nLa
gos
Wat
erN
iger
iaW
este
rnLa
gos
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QO
lush
ayo
Hol
low
ay,P
.O. B
ox 5
55, M
arin
a La
gos,
0�
4746
040-
�60
Leso
tho
Wat
er
& S
ewer
age
Aut
horit
y
WA
SA
Leso
tho
Sou
ther
nM
aser
uN
atio
nal u
tility
U
SA
QRefiloeTlali,P.O.B
ox426
,Maseru10
0,
Leso
tho,
+26
6 22
�229
96, +
266
22��
0006
, tla
lir@
was
a.co
.ls
6�
Libe
ria W
ater
an
d S
ewer
C
orpo
ratio
n
LWS
CLi
beria
Wes
tern
Mon
rovi
a an
d 9
othe
r ci
ties
Nat
iona
l util
ity
US
AQ
N. H
un-B
u Tu
lay,
Kin
g S
ao B
oso
Str
eet
Mon
rovi
a, �
000
Libe
ria �
0 , W
est A
frica
, 2��
77
92�
082/
2��
65�7
�56,
aqu
alw
sc@
yaho
o.co
m, n
hunb
u@ya
hoo.
com
62
Lilo
ngw
e W
ater
B
oard
LWB
Mal
awi
Sou
ther
nLi
long
we
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
)IB
NE
TR
ober
t Han
jaha
nja.
Tel
. +26
5 0�
750�
66.
Em
ail.
rhan
jaha
nja@
lwb.
mw
6�
Lind
i Urb
an
and
Sew
erag
e A
utho
rity
LUW
AS
ATa
nzan
iaE
aste
rnLi
ndi
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
)U
SA
QD
audi
maj
ani,
P.O
. Box
�75
Lin
di, +
02�
220
2402
,+02
� 22
0 2�
�7,
Luw
asa2
005@
yaho
o.co
m
64
Lusa
ka W
ater
&
Sew
erag
e C
ompa
ny
Lim
ited
LWS
CZa
mbi
aS
outh
ern
Lusa
kaU
rban
(sin
gle
city
/m
unic
iapl
ity)
US
AQ
Geo
rge
Ndo
gwe,
P.O
. 50�
98, L
usak
a ,
Zam
bia.
00
2602
��25
�7�2
, 002
60 2
��
2506
67,g
ndog
we@
lwsc
.com
.zm
65
Mal
awi N
orth
ern
Reg
ion
Wat
erbo
ard
NR
WB
Mal
awi
Sou
ther
nM
zuzu
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QTi
tus
Mte
gha,
Kaw
iluw
ilu h
ouse
, Priv
ate
Bag
94,
Mzu
zu,+
265
� ��
06�7
, +26
5�
��02
54,+
265
� ��
0082
, ch
isum
bu@
nrw
b.or
g.m
w
66
�40 ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities
�4�
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Util
ity fu
ll na
me
Util
ity S
hort
N
ame
Cou
ntry
Reg
ion
Prin
cip
al t
owns
/C
ities
Nat
ure
of s
ervi
ce
area
Sou
rce
of
dat
aE
xecu
tive
head
of t
he u
tility
Mal
indi
Wat
er
and
Sew
erag
e C
ompa
ny L
td.
MA
WA
SC
OK
enya
Eas
tern
Mal
indi
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
)U
SA
QM
oses
Kin
ya, P
.O. B
ox 4
�0-8
0200
Mal
indi
, K
enya
. +25
4 04
2 ��
0�7/
2���
2/�0
92�
;
+25
4 04
2��2
06, m
awas
co@
afric
aonl
ine.
co.k
e, m
kiny
a@m
awas
co.c
om
67
Mat
jhab
eng
Loca
l M
unic
ipal
ity
Mat
jhab
eng
Sou
th A
frica
Sou
ther
nW
elko
mU
rban
(sin
gle
city
/m
unic
iapl
ity)
IBN
ET
Mr
Fabe
r. Te
l +27
57
9�64
028.
E
mai
l.jan
f@m
atjh
aben
g.co
.za
68
Mat
losa
na L
ocal
M
unic
ipal
ityM
atlo
sana
Sou
th A
frica
Sou
ther
nK
lerk
sdor
pU
rban
(sin
gle
city
/m
unic
iapl
ity)
IBN
ET
Mr
Els
. Tel
‘+27
�8
406
8�58
. E
mai
l.civ
il@kl
erks
dorp
.org
69
Mbe
ya U
rban
W
ater
and
S
ewer
age
Aut
horit
y
MB
UW
AS
ATa
nzan
iaE
aste
rnM
beya
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
)U
SA
QE
ng. S
.M. S
ahur
i. P.
O B
ox 2
9�2.
Te
l + 2
55 0
25 2
5042
98.
Em
ail.
mbe
yauw
sa@
yaho
o.co
m
70
Mek
elle
City
W
ater
Sup
ply
and
Sew
erag
e S
ervi
ce
MC
WS
SS
Eth
iopi
aE
aste
rnM
ekel
leU
rban
(sin
gle
city
/m
unic
iapl
ity)
US
AQ
Gid
ena
Abe
be, G
iden
a A
bbeb
e, M
ekel
le,
Tigr
ay, E
thio
pia,
P.O
Box
266
, 25
� 0�
4 44
07��
6, 0
9�4
�00�
67, 2
5� 0
�4 4
4��0
00,
gida
b7�@
yaho
o.co
m
7�
Met
sim
ahol
o Lo
cal
Mun
icip
ality
Met
sim
ahol
oS
outh
Afri
caS
outh
ern
Sas
olbu
rgU
rban
(sin
gle
city
/m
unic
iapl
ity)
IBN
ET
Mr
Tzon
ev. T
el +
27 �
6 97
6 00
29.
emai
l.dts
@la
ntic
.net
72
Mid
vaal
Wat
er
Com
pany
Mid
vaal
Sou
th A
frica
Sou
ther
nK
lerk
sdor
p,
Ork
eny,
Stil
font
ein
(City
of M
atlo
sana
)
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QR
U K
han,
P.O
. Box
��
Stil
font
ein
2550
RS
A,
0�8
482
�24�
/ 48
2�26
2, 0
�8 4
82��
�0,
khan
@m
idva
alw
ater
.co.
za, r
uk@
inte
kom
.co.
za
7�
Mog
ale
Loca
l M
unic
ipal
ityM
ogal
eS
outh
Afri
caS
outh
ern
Kru
gers
dorp
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
IBN
ET
Mr
Viljo
en. T
el +
27 �
� 95
� 2�
�9.
Em
ail.
orgv
@m
ogal
ecity
.gov
.za
74
Mom
basa
Wat
er
& S
ewer
age
Com
pany
MW
SC
Ken
yaE
aste
rnM
omba
saU
rban
(sin
gle
city
/m
unic
iapl
ityU
SA
QA
ntho
ny C
hita
vi, P
.O B
ox �
�00-
80�0
0 M
omba
sa,+
254
4� 2
2207
9�/2
2227
00,
+25
4 4�
2222
728,
mom
basa
wat
er@
mom
basa
wat
er.c
o.ke
75
�4�ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities
�42
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Util
ity fu
ll na
me
Util
ity S
hort
N
ame
Cou
ntry
Reg
ion
Prin
cip
al t
owns
/C
ities
Nat
ure
of s
ervi
ce
area
Sou
rce
of
dat
aE
xecu
tive
head
of t
he u
tility
Mor
ogor
o U
rban
Wat
er
and
Sew
erag
e A
utho
rity
MO
UW
AS
ATa
nzan
iaE
aste
rnM
orog
oro
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
)N
atio
nal
Reg
ulat
orJo
hn M
taita
. P.O
Box
547
6. T
el +
255
02�
2604
�45.
Em
ail.
uwsa
mg@
raha
.com
76
Mos
hi U
rban
W
ater
Sup
ply
and
Sew
erag
e A
utho
rity
MU
WS
ATa
nzan
iaE
aste
rnM
oshi
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
)U
SA
QA
ntho
ny K
ason
ta, P
.O. B
ox �
00�,
Mos
hi,
(+25
5) 2
7-27
5��6
4, (+
255)
27-
2754
256,
an
thon
ykas
onta
@ya
hoo.
co.u
k
77
Mtw
ara
Urb
an
Wat
er a
nd
Sew
erag
e A
utho
rity
MTU
WA
SA
Tanz
ania
Eas
tern
Mtw
ara
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
)U
SA
QA
bdal
lah
I. M
atau
na. M
anag
ing
Dire
ctor
, P.
O B
ox �
4�. M
twar
a , T
anza
nia.
Tel
+25
5 02
� 2�
��07
9. F
ax: +
255
0 2�
2��
�079
Em
ail.
mtu
was
a@m
akon
dene
t.com
. am
atau
na@
yaho
o.co
m
78
Mul
onga
Wat
er
and
Sew
erag
e C
ompa
ny
Lim
ited
MW
SC
Zam
bia
Sou
ther
nC
hing
ola,
Muf
ulira
an
d C
hilila
bom
bwe
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QM
anue
l Mut
ale;
PO
Box
��7
�2 C
hing
ola,
Za
mbi
a; 2
60. 2
�2. �
�2�9
9;
mul
onga
@za
mte
l.zm
79
Mun
icip
ality
of
Wal
vis
Bay
WB
MN
amib
iaS
outh
ern
Wal
vis
Bay
&
Sub
urbs
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
US
AQ
And
re B
rum
mer
, Priv
ate
Bag
50�
7, W
alvi
s B
ay, +
264
64 2
�4�0
�, +
264
64 2
�4��
0,
abru
mm
er@
wal
visb
aycc
.org
.na
80
Mus
oma
Urb
an W
ater
an
d S
ewer
age
Aut
horit
y
MU
WA
SA
Tanz
ania
Eas
tern
Mus
oma
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
US
AQ
Gen
es K
adur
i. P.
O B
ox 2
��.
Mus
oma
Tanz
ania
Tel
,. +
255
028
262
2868
/ 2
6204
�0
Fax:
+25
5 28
262
0�72
E
mai
l. m
uwas
a@ju
asun
.net
8�
Mw
anza
Urb
an
Wat
er a
nd
Sew
erag
e A
utho
rity
MW
AU
WA
SA
Tanz
ania
Eas
tern
Mw
anza
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
US
AQ
Just
us R
wet
abul
a, M
wau
was
a M
akon
goro
R
oad,
P.o
x B
ox �
�7, M
wan
za ,
Tanz
ania
, +
255
028
2500
547/
250�
006/
075�
2772
47,
+25
5 02
8250
�2��
�, m
wau
was
a@ya
hoo.
com
82
Nai
robi
Wat
er
& S
ewer
age
Com
pany
NW
SC
OK
enya
Eas
tern
Nai
robi
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
US
AQ
Fran
cis
Mug
o, P
.O. B
ox �
0656
-00�
00,
+25
4 20
552
�54,
552
�26,
Fm
ugo@
nairo
biw
ater
.co.
ke
8�
�42 ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities
�4�
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Util
ity fu
ll na
me
Util
ity S
hort
N
ame
Cou
ntry
Reg
ion
Prin
cip
al t
owns
/C
ities
Nat
ure
of s
ervi
ce
area
Sou
rce
of
dat
aE
xecu
tive
head
of t
he u
tility
Nai
vash
a W
ater
, S
ewer
age
& S
anita
tion
Com
pany
Ltd
.
NA
IVA
WA
SS
Ken
yaE
aste
rnN
aiva
sha
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
)U
SA
QN
dirit
u D
anie
l Mbo
go, M
anag
ing
Dire
ctor
, P.
O. B
ox �
2� -
200�
�7,N
aiva
sha
, +25
4 05
0 20
2097
9, 0
72�
4�50
05, n
aiva
was
s@gm
ail.
com
, da
niel
mnd
iritu
@ya
hoo.
com
84
Nat
iona
l Wat
er
and
Ele
ctric
ity
Com
pany
NA
WE
CG
ambi
aW
este
rnB
anju
l, gr
eate
r B
anju
l Are
a,
Pro
vinc
ial t
owns
.
Nat
iona
l util
ity
US
AQ
Mom
odou
Jal
low
, P.O
.Box
609
, B
anju
l. G
ambi
a, +
2204
�762
��/4
�766
06/7
, +
220
4�75
990,
naw
ec@
qane
t.gm
85
Nat
iona
l Wat
er
and
Sew
erag
e C
orpo
ratio
n
NW
SC
Uga
nda
Eas
tern
Kam
pala
(Jin
ja,
Ent
ebbe
, Mba
le,
Mba
rara
., M
asak
a,
Toro
ro, S
orot
i, Li
ra, G
ulu,
Aru
a,
Kas
ese,
Kab
ale,
B
ushe
nyi,
Fort
P
orta
l, Lu
gazi
, M
ukon
o M
uben
de,
Mas
indi
and
H
oim
a)
Nat
iona
l util
ity
US
AQ
Willi
am M
uhai
rwe;
Plo
t 29
Jinj
a R
oad
PO
Box
705
�; K
ampa
la; 2
65 4
�4��
5�00
/�4�
; w
illiam
.muh
airw
e@nw
sc.c
o.ug
86
Nig
er S
tate
W
ater
Boa
rdN
SW
BN
iger
iaW
este
rnM
inna
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QA
bdul
raha
man
Bab
a, P
MB
70
Min
na,
0805
980�
745,
080
�97�
6509
87
Nka
na W
ater
an
d S
ewer
age
Com
pany
NW
SC
Zam
bia
Sou
ther
nK
itwe
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
IBN
ET
BE
RN
AR
D M
CH
IWA
LA. +
260
222
�099
. 88
Nor
ther
n W
este
rn W
ater
S
uppl
y an
d S
ewer
age
Com
pany
Li
mite
d
NW
WS
SC
LZa
mbi
aS
outh
ern
Sol
wez
iU
rban
(sin
gle
city
/m
unic
iapl
ityU
SA
QA
rnot
t S. C
hilw
esa,
P.O
. Box
��0
�84,
ME
ME
H
ouse
, Sol
wez
i. Za
mbi
a. +
260
2� 8
82��
�0,
+26
0 2�
882
���0
, nw
wat
er@
zam
net.c
o.zm
, ar
nott
@za
mne
t.co.
zm,
arno
ttch
ilwes
a@ya
hoo.
co.u
k
89
OfficeNatinale
DeL
’eau
et d
e L’
assa
inis
sem
ent
de D
jibou
ti
ON
EA
DD
jibou
tiE
aste
rnD
jibou
ti V
illeN
atio
nal u
tility
U
SA
QYo
usso
uf M
irgan
Bar
kath
, BP
�9�
4 B
oelv
ard
De
la R
epub
lique
djib
outi
Rep
ubliq
ue d
e D
jibou
ti, 0
0 25
�/�5
��07
, 00
25�/
�544
2�,
onea
dinf
o@in
tnet
.dj
90
�4�ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities
�44
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Util
ity fu
ll na
me
Util
ity S
hort
N
ame
Cou
ntry
Reg
ion
Prin
cip
al t
owns
/C
ities
Nat
ure
of s
ervi
ce
area
Sou
rce
of
dat
aE
xecu
tive
head
of t
he u
tility
Office
Nat
iona
l de
l’ass
aini
ssem
ent
du S
eneg
al
ON
AS
Sen
egal
Wes
tern
Dak
arN
atio
nal u
tility
U
SA
QA
mad
ou L
amin
e D
ieng
; BP
��4
28 D
akar
; 22
���8
59�5
�5; o
nas@
onas
.sn
9�
OfficeNational
de l’
Eau
et d
e l’A
ssai
niss
emen
t
ON
EA
Bur
kina
Fas
oW
este
rnO
uaga
doug
ouN
atio
nal u
tility
U
SA
QYa
mba
Har
ouna
oui
biga
, 0�
BP
�70
O
uaga
doug
ou 0
�, +
226
50 4
��90
0/09
, 2
26 5
0 4�
�9��
, on
ea@
faso
net.b
f
92
Ogu
n S
tate
W
ater
C
orpo
ratio
n
OG
SW
CN
iger
iaW
este
rnA
beok
uta
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QC
ecilia
Buk
ola
Ola
jide,
Ogu
n S
tate
Wat
er
Cor
pora
tion
Oke
-Mos
an, P
.M.B
207
4 S
apon
, A
beok
uta,
Tel
: 707
0552
2769
6, 0
80�9
788�
62,
Em
ail:
ogun
wat
er@
yaho
o.co
m,
cbol
ajid
e@ya
hoo.
com
9�
Ond
o S
tate
W
ater
C
orpo
ratio
n
OD
WC
Nig
eria
Wes
tern
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QM
AO
Fal
ohun
, P.O
. Box
44�
0,
Tel:
080�
�52
44�0
94
Osh
akat
i M
unic
ipal
ityO
shak
ati
Mun
icip
ality
Nam
ibia
Sou
ther
nO
shak
ati
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
IBN
ET
95
Osu
n S
tate
W
ater
C
orpo
ratio
n
OS
WC
Nig
eria
Wes
tern
Oso
gbo
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QA
depo
ju A
degb
aju,
Osu
n S
tate
Wat
er
Cor
pora
tion,
P.M
.B 4
��7,
Oso
gbo,
Osu
n S
tate
, +2�
480�
�847
006,
osu
nwat
er@
yaho
o.co
m, o
sunw
ater
corp
@ho
tmai
l.com
96
Pla
teau
Sta
te
Wat
er B
oard
PS
WB
Nig
eria
Wes
tern
Jos/
Buk
uru
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QH
ossa
na J
ohn
Daj
an, P
lot n
umbe
r, B
P 4
097,
A
nglo
Jos
Indu
stria
l are
a, P
MB
2�9
8,
+2�
4 0
80�6
44�2
06, h
jdaj
an@
yaho
o.co
m
97
Pot
chef
stro
om
Loca
l M
unic
ipal
ity
Pot
chef
stro
omS
outh
Afri
caS
outh
ern
Pot
chef
stro
omU
rban
(sin
gle
city
/m
unic
iapl
ity)
IBN
ET
Mr
Kle
inha
ns. T
el +
27 �
8 29
9 54
04.
Em
ail.
klei
ntjie
k@po
tch.
co.z
a98
Pub
lic U
tiliti
es
Cor
pora
tion
PU
CS
eych
elle
sE
aste
rnV
icto
riaN
atio
nal u
tility
U
SA
QS
teph
en R
ouss
eau,
Man
agin
g D
irect
or W
ater
an
d se
wer
age
Div
isio
n), M
aiso
n D
e M
alav
ois,
P.
O B
ox �
4, V
icto
ria, M
ahe,
Sey
chel
les,
Tel:
+24
8 67
8208
Fax
:+24
8 �2
2�27
, E
mai
l: sr
ouss
eau@
puc.
sc
99
�44 ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities
�45
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Util
ity fu
ll na
me
Util
ity S
hort
N
ame
Cou
ntry
Reg
ion
Prin
cip
al t
owns
/C
ities
Nat
ure
of s
ervi
ce
area
Sou
rce
of
dat
aE
xecu
tive
head
of t
he u
tility
Ran
d W
ater
Ran
d W
ater
Sou
th A
frica
Sou
ther
nG
aute
ngU
rban
(sin
gle
city
/m
unic
iapl
ity)
US
AQ
Zvin
aiye
Man
yere
, 522
Impa
la ro
ad, G
lenv
ista
. 20
58, P
.O B
ox �
�27,
Joh
anne
sbur
g, S
outh
A
frica
., +
27��
682
0292
, +27
�� 6
820�
2�,
Man
yere
@ra
ndw
ater
.co.
za
�00
Reg
ie d
e D
istr
ibut
ion
d’E
au
RE
GID
ES
O-
DR
CD
RC
Eas
tern
Kin
shas
aN
atio
nal u
tility
U
SA
QN
icol
as M
anzi
la N
gwey
; BP
�25
99; K
insh
asa;
24
� 8�
0 78
4 �8
0; m
anzi
lang
wey
@ya
hoo.
fr�0
�
Reg
ie d
e P
rodu
ctio
n et
de
Dis
trib
utio
n d’
eau
et
d’el
ectr
icite
RE
GID
ES
O-
Bur
undi
Bur
undi
Eas
tern
Buj
umbu
raN
atio
nal u
tility
U
SA
QC
eles
tin N
duw
amun
gu; B
P 6
60 B
ujum
bura
; 25
7222
2272
0; d
greg
ie@
cbin
f.com
�02
Riv
er S
tate
Wat
er
Boa
rdR
SW
BN
iger
iaW
este
rnP
ort H
arco
urt
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QN
atha
n O
meh
, Riv
er S
tate
Wat
er B
oard
, P
MB
527
4, R
umuo
la P
umpi
ng S
tatio
n, P
ort
Har
cour
t , T
el: 0
8072
45�4
�7
�0�
Sal
danh
a B
ay L
ocal
M
unic
ipal
ity
Sal
danh
a B
ayS
outh
Afri
caS
outh
ern
Sal
danh
a B
ayU
rban
(sin
gle
city
/m
unic
iapl
ityIB
NE
TM
r Ti
tus.
Tel
+’+
27 2
2 70
� 70
47. E
mai
l w
ilfre
dt@
sald
anha
bay.
co.z
a�0
4
Sed
iben
g W
ater
SW
(Sed
iben
g,
S.A
frica
)S
outh
Afri
caS
outh
ern
Wel
kom
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
US
AQ
Mak
umu
Ubi
si, P
rivat
e B
ag X
5 , B
otha
ville
96
60, +
2756
5�50
�09,
+27
565�
5025
9,
mub
usis
@se
dibe
ngw
ater
.co.
za
�05
Sen
egal
aise
des
E
aux
SD
ES
eneg
alW
este
rnD
akar
Nat
iona
l util
ity
US
AQ
Mam
adou
Dia
, BP
224
Dak
ar S
eneg
al,
0022
���
8�9�
702,
00
22��
� 8�
9 �7
20,
mda
a@sd
e.sn
�06
Shi
nyan
ga
Urb
an W
ater
&
Sew
erag
e A
utho
rity
SH
UW
AS
ATa
nzan
iaE
aste
rnS
hiny
anga
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
)U
SA
QG
ulla
m M
oham
ed A
lli; P
O B
ox
298;
Shi
nyan
ga; 0
28.2
76.2
07�;
m
ajim
amla
kash
uwas
a@ya
hoo.
com
�07
Sin
gida
Urb
an
Wat
er a
nd
Sew
erag
e A
utho
rity
SIU
WA
SA
Tanz
ania
Eas
tern
Sin
gida
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
)N
atio
nal
Reg
ulat
orIs
sack
Nya
konj
i. P.
O B
ox �
74. T
el. +
255
026
2502
�22
. Em
ail.
suw
asam
aji@
yaho
o.co
m�0
8
�45ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities
�46
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Util
ity fu
ll na
me
Util
ity S
hort
N
ame
Cou
ntry
Reg
ion
Prin
cip
al t
owns
/C
ities
Nat
ure
of s
ervi
ce
area
Sou
rce
of
dat
aE
xecu
tive
head
of t
he u
tility
Soc
iete
de
Dis
trib
utio
n d’
Eau
de
Cot
e d’
Ivoi
re
SO
DE
CI
Cot
e d’
Ivoi
reW
este
rnN
atio
nal
Util
ity
Nat
iona
l util
ity
US
AQ
Bas
ile E
bah;
0�
BP
�84
� A
bidj
an 0
�; +
225
2�
2� �
�� �
0; fa
x +
225
2� 2
� �0
06;
beba
h@so
deci
.ci
�09
Soc
iete
de
Pat
rimoi
ne d
es
Eau
x du
Nig
er
SP
EN
Nig
erW
este
rnN
iam
eyN
atio
nal u
tility
U
SA
QS
alou
Sey
ni; B
P �
07�8
; Nia
mey
; 22
7.20
7�5�
20; s
eysa
lou@
yaho
o.fr
��0
Soc
iete
d’
Ene
rgie
et
d’E
au d
u G
abon
SE
EG
Gab
onW
este
rnN
atio
nal u
tility
N
atio
nal u
tility
U
SA
QFr
anco
is O
mba
nda,
BP
2�8
7 Li
brev
ille,
Tel:
24�
76�2
82, F
ax:2
4� 7
6���
4��
�
Soc
iete
Nat
iona
le
de L
’Eau
SN
DE
Mau
ritan
ieW
este
rnN
ouak
chot
tU
SA
QC
heik
Abd
alla
hi o
uld
houe
ibib
, BP
796
N
ouak
chot
t, +
2225
24�4
56, +
222
5252
���,
sn
de@
mau
ritel
.mr
��2
Soc
iete
N
atio
nale
des
E
aux
du B
enin
SO
NE
BB
enin
Wes
tern
Nat
iona
l util
ityN
atio
nal u
tility
US
AQ
Kar
imou
Ass
oua,
0�
BP
2�6
cot
onou
Ben
in,
+29
9 2�
��6
258,
+29
9 2�
���
�08
���
Soc
iete
Nat
iona
le
d’E
xplo
itatio
n et
de
Dis
trib
utio
n de
s E
aux
SO
NE
DE
Tuni
siaW
este
rnN
atio
nal u
tility
Nat
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QM
oham
ed A
li K
houa
ja; A
ve S
limen
e B
en S
limen
e, E
l Man
a 2,
Tun
is 2
092;
2�
6.7�
.887
.000
; son
ede@
sone
de.c
om.tn
��4
Soc
iete
Tog
olai
se
des
Eau
xTd
ETo
goW
este
rnLo
me
Nat
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QYa
wo
Elih
oho
Eve
nya,
��0
�5�,
Ave
nue
de
la L
iber
atio
n, 2
2� 2
2� 8
277,
22�
22�
46�
�,
tded
@to
go-im
et.c
om
��5
Soc
ocie
te D
es
Eau
x D
e G
uine
eS
EG
Gui
nea
Wes
tern
Con
akry
Nat
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QC
heik
talib
y S
ylla
, B.P
�50
Con
akry
, 00
2246
02�5
9�8,
002
24�0
4��8
22
cts@
seg.
com
.gn
��6
Sok
oto
Sta
te
Wat
er B
oard
SS
WB
Nig
eria
Wes
tern
Sok
oto
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QS
abo
Abu
baka
r Ya
bo, N
o �
Ille
la R
oad,
S
okot
o , T
el: 0
60 2
�278
5,
Em
ail:
Sok
staw
ater
bd@
yaho
o.co
m
��7
�46 ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities
�47
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Util
ity fu
ll na
me
Util
ity S
hort
N
ame
Cou
ntry
Reg
ion
Prin
cip
al t
owns
/C
ities
Nat
ure
of s
ervi
ce
area
Sou
rce
of
dat
aE
xecu
tive
head
of t
he u
tility
Sol
Pla
atje
Loc
al
Mun
icip
ality
Sol
Pla
atje
Sou
th A
frica
Sou
ther
nK
imbe
rlyU
rban
(sin
gle
city
/m
unic
iapl
ityIB
NE
TM
r C
oope
r. Te
l +27
5�
8�0
6�00
. em
ail.
tcoo
per@
solp
laat
je.o
rg.z
a��
8
Son
gea
Urb
an W
ater
&
Sew
erag
e A
utho
rity
SO
UW
AS
ATa
nzan
iaE
aste
rnS
onge
a U
rban
(sin
gle
city
/m
unic
iapl
ityU
SA
QM
oham
ed G
ayo,
P.O
. Box
�6�
, +25
5 25
26
02�2
6, 2
6022
94, s
ouw
asa@
yaho
o.co
m��
9
Sou
th D
arfu
r S
tate
Wat
er
Cor
pora
tion
SW
CS
udan
Eas
tern
Nya
laU
rban
(sin
gle
city
/m
unic
iapl
ityIB
NE
Tno
resp
onse
�20
Sou
ther
n W
ater
an
d S
ewer
age
Com
pany
Li
mite
d
SW
SC
Zam
bia
Sou
ther
nC
hom
aU
rban
(sin
gle
city
/m
unic
iapl
ityIB
NE
TA
lfred
Mas
upha
. Tel
+26
0 �2
2000
�/22
04��
. E
mai
l. bo
mun
alul
a@ya
hoo.
co.u
k�2
�
Ste
llenb
osch
Lo
cal
Mun
icip
ality
Ste
llenb
osch
Sou
th A
frica
Sou
ther
nS
telle
nbos
chU
rban
(sin
gle
city
/m
unic
iapl
ityIB
NE
TM
r Fo
urie
. Tel
+27
2�
808
8205
. E
mai
l. ko
busf
@st
elle
nbos
ch.o
rg�2
2
Sum
baw
anga
U
rban
Wat
er
and
Sew
erag
e A
utho
rity
SU
WA
SA
Tanz
ania
Eas
tern
Sum
baw
anga
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
Nat
iona
l R
egul
ator
Ant
ipas
Shi
rima.
P.O
Box
�92
. Tel
. +25
5 02
5 28
0220
6. E
mai
l. su
was
a@ya
hoo.
co.u
k�2
�
Sw
azila
nd
Wat
er S
ervi
ces
Cor
pora
tion
SW
SC
Sw
azila
ndS
outh
ern
Mba
bane
Nat
iona
l util
ity
US
AQ
Pet
er B
hem
be, P
.O. B
ox 2
0, +
268
4�6�
608,
4�
6�6�
7, p
nbhe
mbe
@sw
sc.c
o.sz
�24
Tabo
ra U
rban
W
ater
and
S
ewer
age
Aut
horit
y
TBU
WA
SA
Tanz
ania
Eas
tern
Tabo
raU
rban
(sin
gle
city
/m
unic
iapl
ityN
atio
nal
Reg
ulat
orR
amad
hani
Kal
ingo
ji. P
.O B
ox �
47. T
el +
255
026
2604
59�.
Em
aill.
tuw
asa@
yaho
o.co
m�2
5
Tang
a U
rban
W
ater
and
S
ewer
age
Aut
horit
y
TUW
AS
ATa
nzan
iaE
aste
rnTa
nga
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
Nat
iona
l R
egul
ator
Josh
ua M
geye
kwa.
P.O
Box
50�
�. T
el. +
255
027
2644
626.
Em
ail.
tang
a@ka
ribut
anga
.com
�26
�47ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities
�48
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Util
ity fu
ll na
me
Util
ity S
hort
N
ame
Cou
ntry
Reg
ion
Prin
cip
al t
owns
/C
ities
Nat
ure
of s
ervi
ce
area
Sou
rce
of
dat
aE
xecu
tive
head
of t
he u
tility
Tara
ba S
tate
W
ater
Sup
ply
Age
ncy
TSW
SA
Nig
eria
Wes
tern
Jalin
goR
egio
nal u
tility
US
AQ
Asa
be M
ai’A
ngw
a, T
arab
a st
ate
wat
er
supp
ly A
genc
y, P
.M.B
�02
8, J
alin
go, T
el:
+2�
4807
0804
�02,
Em
ail:a
siyb
ras2
yaho
o.co
m
�27
Tshw
ane
Met
roTs
hwan
e M
etro
Sou
th A
frica
Sou
ther
nP
reto
riaU
rban
(sin
gle
city
/m
unic
iapl
ity)
IBN
ET
Mr
Mou
ton.
Tel
+�2
�58
802
2.
Em
ail.f
rans
m2@
tshw
ane.
gov.
za
�28
Upp
er N
ile
Sta
te W
ater
C
orpo
ratio
n
UN
SW
CS
udan
Eas
tern
Mal
akal
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
)IB
NE
Tno
resp
onse
�29
Wat
er
Cor
pora
tion
of
Oyo
Sta
te
WC
OS
Nig
eria
Wes
tern
Ibad
anR
egio
nal u
tility
US
AQ
I.D O
yega
de, W
ater
Cor
pora
tion
of O
yo
Sta
te S
ecre
taria
t, P.
M.b
5��
9, Ib
adan
, Tel
: 08
0��2
7�99
5, E
mai
l: w
coys
@sk
anne
t.com
��0
Wel
kite
Tow
n W
ater
Sup
ply
and
Sew
erag
e E
nter
pris
e
WTW
SS
EE
thio
pia
Eas
tern
Wel
kite
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
)U
SA
QP
etro
s Te
klew
old,
P.O
. Box
79
, Tel
: +25
� ��
� �0
06�4
, Fax
: +25
����
�080
�0,
Em
ail:
petr
os62
�@ya
hoo.
com
���
Wes
tern
Wat
er
and
Sew
erag
e C
ompa
ny
WW
SC
Zam
bia
Sou
ther
nM
ongu
Urb
an (s
ingl
e ci
ty/
mun
icia
plity
)IB
NE
TA
kam
ana
Mul
emw
a. T
el +
260
7 22
� 85
6.
Em
ail.
ww
sc@
yaho
o.co
m��
2
Yobe
Sta
te W
ater
C
orpo
ratio
nY
SW
CN
iger
iaW
este
rnD
amat
uru
Reg
iona
l util
ityU
SA
QId
i Mam
man
Day
a, Y
obe
Sta
te W
taer
C
orpo
ratio
n, P
MB
�0�
2, D
amA
turu
Yob
e S
tate
, Nig
eria
, 080
�626
89�7
, E
mai
l:idi
mam
man
D@
yaho
o.co
m
���
Zam
fara
Sta
te
Wat
er B
oard
ZSW
BN
iger
iaW
este
rnG
usau
and
Gar
eaR
egio
nal u
tility
US
AQ
San
i Mus
taph
a G
asau
, Zam
fara
Sta
te W
ater
B
oard
, Dan
sada
u ro
ad G
usau
. Te
l: 08
0�64
�8�9
9, 0
8056
0�09
�8,
Em
ail:
Sm
usty
2008
@ya
hoo.
com
��4
�48 ANNEX A: List of all participating utilities
�49
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Ann
ex B
: G
loss
ary
of In
dica
tors
1. S
ervi
ce C
over
age
Wat
er c
over
age
%
No
.In
dic
ato
rDefi
nition
Eq
uati
on
Uni
t
Pop
ulat
ion
with
acc
ess
to w
ater
ser
vice
s (e
ither
with
dire
ct
serv
ice
conn
ectio
n or
with
in re
ach
of a
pub
lic w
ater
poi
nt)
as a
per
cent
age
of th
e to
tal p
opul
atio
n un
der
a ut
ility’
s ar
ea
of re
spon
sibi
lity
Ser
ved
popu
latio
n (c
onne
ctio
ns &
wat
er p
oint
s) ÷
to
tal p
opul
atio
n w
ithin
ser
vice
are
a
Sew
erag
e co
vera
ge%
Pop
ulat
ion
with
wat
er-b
orne
sew
erag
e se
rvic
es (d
irect
se
rvic
e co
nnec
tion)
as
a pe
rcen
tage
of t
he to
tal p
opul
atio
n un
der
utilit
y’s
area
of r
espo
nsib
ility
Pop
ulat
ion
with
dire
ct s
ewer
age
conn
ectio
n ÷
tota
l po
pula
tion
with
in s
ervi
ce a
rea
2. P
rod
uctio
n &
Con
sum
ptio
n
Tota
l wat
er p
rodu
ced
per
pers
on o
n a
daily
bas
islit
res/
pers
on/
day
Tota
l ann
ual w
ater
sup
plie
d to
the
dist
ribut
ion
syst
em
(incl
udin
g pu
rcha
sed
wat
er, i
f any
) exp
ress
ed b
y po
pula
tion
serv
ed p
er d
ay
[(Vol
ume
of to
tal s
yste
m in
put *
�0^
9) ÷
(pop
ulat
ion
serv
ed b
y pi
ped
wat
er *
�65
)]
Tota
l wat
er p
rodu
ced
per
conn
ectio
n on
a d
aily
bas
ism
�/co
nnec
tion/
day
Tota
l ann
ual w
ater
sup
plie
d to
the
dist
ribut
ion
syst
em
(incl
udin
g pu
rcha
sed
wat
er, i
f any
) exp
ress
ed b
y co
nnec
tions
ser
ved
on a
dai
ly b
asis
[(Vol
ume
of to
tal s
yste
m in
put *
�0^
9) ÷
(num
ber
of
wat
er c
onne
ctio
ns *
�65
)]
Tota
l wat
er c
onsu
mpt
ion
per
pers
on o
n a
daily
bas
islit
res/
pers
on/
day
Tota
l ann
ual w
ater
sol
d ex
pres
sed
by p
opul
atio
n se
rved
on
a da
ily b
asis
[(Vol
ume
of to
tal s
yste
m in
put *
�0^
9) ÷
(pop
ulat
ion
serv
ed b
y pi
ped
wat
er s
uppl
y *
�65)
]
Dom
estic
con
sum
ptio
n pe
r pe
rson
on
a da
ily b
asis
lit
res/
pers
on/
day
[(Tot
al b
illed
dom
estic
con
sum
ptio
n *
�0^
9) ÷
(p
opul
atio
n se
rved
by
pipe
d w
ater
sup
ply
* �6
5)]
Dom
estic
con
sum
ptio
n as
%
of to
tal c
onsu
mpt
ion
%(T
otal
bille
d do
mes
tic c
onsu
mpt
ion
÷ to
tal b
illed
cons
umpt
ion)
*�0
0Th
e pe
rcen
tage
of t
otal
bille
d co
nsum
ptio
n th
at is
bille
d fo
r do
mes
tic u
se.
Non
reve
nue
wat
er (N
RW
)
%
(Tot
al s
yste
m in
put i
n m
� –
tota
l bille
d co
nsum
ptio
n in
m
� ) ÷
tot
al s
yste
m in
put i
n m
� *�
00Th
e di
ffere
nce
betw
een
wat
er s
uppl
ied
and
wat
er s
old
(i.e.
vo
lum
e of
wat
er ‘l
ost’)
exp
ress
ed a
s a
perc
enta
ge o
f net
w
ater
sup
plie
d
3. N
on r
even
ue w
ater
%
NR
W p
er k
ilom
etre
of n
etw
ork
[(Tot
al s
yste
m in
put i
n m
� –
tota
l bille
d co
nsum
ptio
n in
m
� ) *�
0^6
÷ (l
engt
h of
dis
trib
utio
n ne
twor
k *�
65)]
The
volu
me
of w
ater
‘los
t’ pe
r ki
lom
etre
of w
ater
dis
trib
utio
n ne
twor
k pe
r da
ym
� /km
/day
NR
W p
er c
onne
ctio
n on
a
daily
bas
is[(T
otal
sys
tem
inpu
t in
m�
– to
tal b
illed
cons
umpt
ion
in
m� )
*�0^
6 ÷
(num
ber
of w
ater
con
nect
ions
*�6
5)]
The
volu
me
of w
ater
‘los
t’ pe
r w
ater
con
nect
ion
per
day.
m� /
conn
ectio
n/da
y
�49
�50
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
4. F
inan
cial
Per
form
ance
Ave
rage
tarif
f per
m�
sold
US
$/m
� so
ldTh
e ra
tio o
f a u
tility
’s to
tal a
nnua
l dire
ct b
illed
reve
nues
to
tota
l ann
ual w
ater
con
sum
ptio
n (re
venu
e fro
m b
ulk
wat
er,
non
wat
er s
ales
, sub
sidi
es a
nd in
tere
st a
re e
xclu
ded)
Tota
l ann
ual d
irect
bille
d re
venu
e ÷
tot
al a
nnua
l vo
lum
e of
wat
er s
old
Col
lect
ion
ratio
%Th
e ra
tio o
f cas
h in
com
e (i.
e. a
ctua
l rev
enue
) to
tota
l bille
d re
venu
e, e
xpre
ssed
as
a pe
rcen
tage
Cas
h in
com
e ÷
Bille
d re
venu
e
Col
lect
ion
perio
d#
days
Year
-end
acc
ount
s re
ceiv
able
s as
a s
hare
of a
nnua
l re
venu
es, e
xpre
ssed
in n
umbe
r of
day
s.[(Y
ear-
end
acco
unts
rece
ivab
le ÷
tota
l ann
ual
oper
atin
g re
venu
es) *
�65]
Ope
ratin
g co
st c
over
age
ratio
(O
CC
R)
ratio
A r
atio
whi
ch m
easu
res
the
utilit
y’s
abilit
y to
cov
er it
s op
erat
ing
and
mai
nten
ance
cos
ts (e
xclu
ding
inte
rest
and
de
prec
iatio
n) fr
om re
venu
es, w
ithou
t rel
ianc
e on
ext
erna
l su
bsid
ies.
Tota
l ann
ual b
illing
reve
nues
÷ to
tal a
nnua
l ope
ratin
g co
sts
Uni
t ope
ratin
g co
sts
per
m�
sold
US
$/m
� so
ldTh
e ra
tio o
f a u
tility
’s to
tal a
nnua
l ope
ratin
g ex
pens
es a
nd
tota
l ann
ual v
olum
e of
wat
er s
old.
Tota
l ann
ual o
pera
tiona
l exp
ense
s ÷
tota
l ann
ual
volu
me
sold
Sta
ff pr
oduc
tivity
inde
x (S
PI)
# st
aff/
conn
ectio
nsTo
tal n
umbe
r of
em
ploy
ees
÷ n
umbe
r of
wat
er
conn
ectio
ns
Labo
ur c
osts
as
a pe
rcen
tage
of
ope
ratin
g co
sts
%La
bour
cos
ts ÷
tota
l ope
ratin
g co
sts
The
ratio
of l
ab o
ur c
osts
to to
tal o
pera
ting
cost
s (d
oes
not
incl
ude
depr
ecia
tion
or d
ebt s
ervi
ce)
%
Num
ber
of tr
aini
ng d
ays
per
part
icip
atin
g st
aff
Tota
l num
ber
of tr
aini
ng d
ays
÷ n
umbe
r of
sta
ff th
at
part
icip
ated
in o
ne tr
aini
ng e
vent
# da
ys
Ave
rage
resp
onse
tim
e to
ad
dres
s a
com
plai
ntho
urs
5. C
osts
& S
taffi
ng
Tota
l sta
ff pe
r �,
000
conn
ectio
ns
Labo
ur c
osts
as
a pe
rcen
tage
of
ope
ratin
g co
sts
(Num
ber
of s
taff
that
par
ticip
ated
in o
ne tr
aini
ng e
vent
÷
tota
l num
ber
of e
mpl
oyee
s) *
�00
6. Q
ualit
y of
Ser
vice
�50 Annex B: Glossary of IndicatorsAnnex B: Glossary of Indicators
�5�
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
7. A
fford
abili
ty o
f Ser
vice
s
Ave
rage
per
cap
ita ta
riff a
s a
perc
enta
ge o
f GN
I per
cap
ita%
[(Tot
al w
ater
billi
ng in
loca
l cur
renc
y ÷
(pop
ulat
ion
serv
ed b
y pi
ped
wat
er s
uppl
y *
exch
ange
rat
e to
U
S$)
) ÷
(GN
I per
cap
ita in
US
$) *
�00
]
Mon
thly
bill
for
hous
ehol
ds
cons
umin
g 6
m�
per
mon
th
thro
ugh
a ho
useh
old
conn
ectio
n or
sha
red
yard
tap
(doe
s no
t inc
lude
use
of s
tand
po
sts)
US
$/m
onth
Cos
t in
loca
l cur
renc
y of
6m
� w
ater
÷ e
xcha
nge
rate
w
ith U
S$
Dom
estic
wat
er c
onne
ctio
n ch
arge
as
a pe
rcen
tage
of
GN
I per
cap
ita
%To
tal a
nnua
l billi
ng re
venu
es ÷
tota
l ann
ual o
pera
ting
cost
s
Ave
rage
cap
ital e
xpen
ditu
re
in th
e la
st 5
yea
rs p
er
conn
ectio
n
US
$/co
nnec
tion
Tota
l cap
ital e
xpen
ditu
re in
the
last
5 y
ears
÷
(exc
hang
e ra
te to
US
$ *5
* th
e nu
mbe
r of
wat
er
conn
ectio
ns)
Grossto
talfixedassetsper
capi
ta s
erve
dU
S$/
capi
taTo
tal a
sset
s in
loca
l cur
renc
y ÷
(exc
hang
e ra
te to
U
S$
* po
pula
tion
serv
ed b
y pi
ped
wat
er s
uppl
y)
US
$
Met
erin
g le
vel
8. A
sset
s
Gro
ss w
ater
sup
ply
asse
ts p
er
capi
ta s
erve
dGrossfixedwatersupplyassetsinlocalcurrency
÷ (e
xcha
nge
rate
to U
S$
* po
pula
tion
serv
ed b
y pi
ped
wat
er s
uppl
y)
9. M
eter
ing
Pra
ctic
es
The
perc
enta
ge o
f con
nect
ions
with
ope
ratin
g m
eter
s ou
t of t
he to
tal n
umbe
r of
con
nect
ions
.To
tal n
umbe
r of
con
nect
ions
with
ope
ratin
g m
eter
÷
tota
l num
ber
of c
onne
ctio
ns%
O
ther
OverallEfficiencyIndicator
(OE
I)Th
e vo
lum
e of
wat
er fo
r w
hich
a u
tility
col
lect
s re
venu
e, e
xpre
ssed
as
a pe
rcen
tage
of t
he to
tal
volu
me
it pr
oduc
es.
[(�-N
RW
)* C
olle
ctio
n R
atio
]tota
l num
ber
of
conn
ectio
ns%
�5�Annex B: Glossary of IndicatorsAnnex B: Glossary of Indicators
�52
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Ann
ex C
: M
arke
tpla
ce re
sults
Th
e m
arke
tpla
ce re
sults
are
from
the
thre
e su
breg
iona
l mee
tings
hel
d in
200
8. T
he a
ctiv
ity g
ave
utilit
ies
the
oppo
rtun
ity to
pr
iorit
ize
its le
arni
ng n
eeds
(dem
and)
and
offe
r its
exp
ertis
e (s
uppl
y).
Sup
ply
& D
eman
d
Pro
-poo
r po
licy
MA
RK
ET
PLA
CE
: SE
RV
ICE
S T
O T
HE
PO
OR
Cou
ntry
Util
ity/o
rgan
izat
ion
Req
uest
/offe
r
DE
MA
ND
Ken
yaN
aiva
sha
Less
ons
from
wor
king
with
CB
Os
Reg
iona
lN
ETW
AS
Pay
men
t met
hods
Zam
bia
KW
SC
SU
PP
LYLe
sson
s fro
m w
orki
ng w
ith C
BO
sK
enya
NW
SC
O
Less
ons
from
wor
king
with
CB
Os
Tanz
ania
M
oshi
Less
ons
from
wor
king
with
CB
Os
Tanz
ania
Ta
nga
Less
ons
from
wor
king
with
CB
Os
Zam
bia
Sou
ther
n W
ater
and
Sew
erag
e C
o
Less
ons
from
wor
king
with
CB
Os
Zam
bia
KW
SC
Pay
men
t met
hods
Sud
anK
hart
oum
Alte
rnat
ive
mod
els
for
man
agin
g se
rvic
esZa
mbi
aLu
saka
Wat
er a
nd S
ewer
age
Co
CB
Os
and
info
rmal
pro
vide
rsR
egio
nal
NE
TWA
S
CB
Os
and
info
rmal
pro
vide
rsB
urki
na F
aso
ON
EA
Soc
ial c
onne
ctio
n po
licy
Uga
nda
NW
SC
Del
egat
ed m
anag
emen
t mod
elK
enya
Kis
umu
Wat
er a
nd S
ewer
age
Co
�52
�5�
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Sup
ply
& D
eman
d
NR
W M
anag
emen
t
MA
RK
ET
PLA
CE
: TE
CH
NIC
AL
Cou
ntry
Util
ity/o
rgan
izat
ion
Req
uest
/offe
r
DE
MA
ND
DR
CR
EG
IDE
SO
NR
W M
anag
emen
tE
thio
pia
Mek
elle
NR
W M
anag
emen
tK
enya
NW
SC
O
NR
W M
anag
emen
tK
enya
Kis
umu
Wat
er a
nd S
ewer
age
Co
NR
W M
anag
emen
tK
enya
ELD
OW
AS
NR
W M
anag
emen
tS
udan
K
hart
oum
Sta
te W
ater
Cor
pora
tion
NR
W M
anag
emen
tTa
nzan
iaM
beya
NR
W M
anag
emen
tTa
nzan
iaS
hiny
anga
NR
W M
anag
emen
tTa
nzan
iaM
twar
a
NR
W M
anag
emen
tTa
nzan
iaM
oshi
NR
W M
anag
emen
tTa
nzan
iaIR
UW
AS
A
NR
W M
anag
emen
tTa
nzan
iaM
wan
za
NR
W M
anag
emen
tU
gand
aN
WS
C
NR
W M
anag
emen
tZa
mbi
aS
outh
ern
Wat
er a
nd S
ewer
age
Co
NR
W M
anag
emen
tZa
mbi
aLu
saka
Wat
er a
nd S
ewer
age
Co
NR
W M
anag
emen
tZa
mbi
aK
WS
C
Dem
and
man
agem
ent/
dist
rict m
eter
ing
Reg
iona
l N
ETW
AS
Dem
and
man
agem
ent/
dist
rict m
eter
ing
Tanz
ania
Lind
i
Dem
and
man
agem
ent/
dist
rict m
eter
ing
Uga
nda
NW
SC
Dem
and
man
agem
ent/
dist
rict m
eter
ing
Zam
bia
KW
SC
Met
er M
anag
emen
tTa
nzan
iaD
AW
AS
CO
Met
er M
anag
emen
tU
gand
aN
WS
C
Net
wor
k M
anag
emen
tZa
mbi
aLu
saka
Wat
er a
nd S
ewer
age
Co
Ass
et M
anag
emen
tE
thio
pia
Mek
elle
Ass
et M
anag
emen
tTa
nzan
iaTa
nga
Ope
ratio
ns M
anag
emen
tTa
nzan
iaM
beya
Sta
tic P
lant
Mai
nten
ance
Eth
iopi
aM
ekel
le
�5�Annex C: Marketplace results
�54
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
�54 Annex C: Marketplace results
Sta
tic P
lant
Mai
nten
ance
Ken
yaK
isum
u W
ater
and
Sew
erag
e C
o
Blo
ck M
appi
ngE
thio
pia
Mek
elle
Blo
ck M
appi
ngK
enya
Nai
vash
a W
ater
and
Sew
erag
e C
o
Blo
ck M
appi
ngS
udan
Kha
rtou
m S
tate
Wat
er C
orpo
ratio
n
Blo
ck M
appi
ngTa
nzan
iaIR
UW
AS
A
Pro
ject
Man
agem
ent
Tanz
ania
Zanz
ibar
Qua
lity
Ass
uran
ceE
thio
pia
Mek
elle
Qua
lity
Ass
uran
ceK
enya
Kis
umu
Wat
er a
nd S
ewer
age
Co
Qua
lity
Ass
uran
ceTa
nzan
iaM
beya
Inve
stm
ent P
lann
ing
Ken
yaN
aiva
sha
Wat
er a
nd S
ewer
age
Co
Sup
ply
& D
eman
dR
eque
st/o
ffer
DE
MA
ND
Cou
ntry
Util
ity/o
rgan
izat
ion
SU
PP
LYN
RW
Man
agem
ent
Ken
yaM
alin
di W
ater
and
Sew
erag
e C
ompa
ny
NR
W M
anag
emen
tTa
nzan
iaTa
nga
Met
er M
anag
emen
tK
enya
Mal
indi
Wat
er a
nd S
ewer
age
Com
pany
Net
wor
k M
anag
emen
tU
gand
aN
WS
C
Ope
ratio
ns M
anag
emen
tU
gand
aN
WS
C
Sta
tic P
lant
Mai
nten
ance
Uga
nda
NW
SC
Blo
ck M
appi
ngU
gand
aN
WS
C
Pro
ject
Man
agem
ent
Uga
nda
NW
SC
Qua
lity
Ass
uran
ceTa
nzan
iaD
AW
AS
CO
Qua
lity
Ass
uran
ceU
gand
aN
WS
C
Cap
acity
Bui
ldin
g &
Tra
inin
gU
gand
aN
WS
C
Cap
acity
Bui
ldin
g &
Tra
inin
gR
egio
nal
NE
TWA
S
MA
RK
ET
PLA
CE
: CO
MM
ER
CIA
L A
ND
FIN
AN
CIA
L M
AN
AG
EM
EN
T
�55
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Sup
ply
& D
eman
d
Cus
tom
er s
atis
fact
ion
surv
eys
MA
RK
ET
PLA
CE
: CU
ST
OM
ER
CA
RE
Cou
ntry
Util
ity/o
rgan
izat
ion
Req
uest
/offe
r
DE
MA
ND
Ken
yaM
alin
di
Cus
tom
er s
atis
fact
ion
surv
eys
Tanz
ania
Mbe
ya
Att
achm
ent o
ppor
tuni
ties
for
new
sta
ffR
egio
nal
NE
TWA
S
SU
PP
LY
Gen
eral
cus
tom
er c
are
Ken
yaK
isum
u W
ater
and
Sew
erag
e C
o
Gen
eral
cus
tom
er c
are
Tanz
ania
D
AW
AS
CO
Gen
eral
cus
tom
er c
are
Tanz
ania
M
beya
Gen
eral
cus
tom
er c
are
Tanz
ania
Mtw
ara
Gen
eral
cus
tom
er c
are
Uga
nda
NW
SC
Gen
eral
cus
tom
er c
are
Zam
bia
KW
SC
Cus
tom
er m
anag
emen
t sys
tem
Eth
iopi
aM
ekel
le
Cus
tom
er c
are
polic
yK
enya
Nai
vaw
as
Cul
ture
cha
nge
Ken
yaN
aiva
was
Cul
ture
cha
nge
Tanz
ania
Zanz
ibar
Cus
tom
er c
all c
ente
rK
enya
Eld
owas
Sta
ff tr
aini
ng o
n cu
stom
er c
are
Tanz
ania
IRU
WA
SA
Cus
tom
er s
atis
fact
ion
surv
eys
Uga
nda
NW
SC
Att
achm
ent o
ppor
tuni
ties
for
new
sta
ffU
gand
aN
WS
C
Cus
tom
er m
anag
emen
t sys
tem
Uga
nda
NW
SC
Cus
tom
er m
anag
emen
t sys
tem
DR
CR
EG
IDE
SO
Cus
tom
er m
anag
emen
t sys
tem
Sen
egal
SD
E
Cus
tom
er c
are
polic
yU
gand
aN
WS
C
Cul
ture
cha
nge
Uga
nda
NW
SC
Cus
tom
er c
all c
ente
rU
gand
aN
WS
C
Sta
ff tr
aini
ng o
n cu
stom
er c
are
Uga
nda
NW
SC
�55Annex C: Marketplace results
�56
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Sup
ply
& D
eman
d
MA
RK
ET
PLA
CE
: CO
MM
ER
CIA
L A
ND
FIN
AN
CIA
L M
AN
AG
EM
EN
T
Cou
ntry
Util
ity/o
rgan
izat
ion
Req
uest
/offe
r
DE
MA
ND
SU
PP
LY
Tanz
ania
M
wan
za
Mob
ilizin
g re
sour
ces
Tanz
ania
Ta
nga
Mob
ilizin
g re
sour
ces
Tanz
ania
S
hiny
anga
M
obiliz
ing
reso
urce
s
Tanz
ania
R
UW
AS
A
Billi
ng s
yste
m/d
atab
ase
clea
nup
Tanz
ania
S
hiny
anga
B
illing
sys
tem
/dat
abas
e cl
eanu
p
Zam
bia
KW
SC
B
illing
sys
tem
/dat
abas
e cl
eanu
p
Zam
bia
Lusa
ka W
ater
& S
ewer
age
Co
Billi
ng s
yste
m/d
atab
ase
clea
nup
Zam
bia
Sou
ther
n W
ater
and
Sew
erag
e C
o B
illing
sys
tem
/dat
abas
e cl
eanu
p
Eth
iopi
a M
ekel
e R
even
ue C
olle
ctio
n/D
ebt m
anag
emen
t
Ken
ya
Mal
indi
R
even
ue C
olle
ctio
n/D
ebt m
anag
emen
t
Tanz
ania
Li
ndi
Rev
enue
Col
lect
ion/
Deb
t man
agem
ent
Tanz
ania
M
oshi
R
even
ue C
olle
ctio
n/D
ebt m
anag
emen
t
Zam
bia
KW
SC
R
even
ue C
olle
ctio
n/D
ebt m
anag
emen
t
Zam
bia
KW
SC
O
utso
urci
ng re
venu
e co
llect
ion
Eth
iopi
a M
ekel
e Fi
nanc
ial m
anag
emen
t
Tanz
ania
R
UW
AS
A
Fina
ncia
l man
agem
ent
Tanz
ania
Li
ndi
MIS
Ken
ya
NW
SC
O
Billi
ng s
yste
m/d
atab
ase
clea
nup
Tanz
ania
D
AW
AS
CO
B
illing
sys
tem
/dat
abas
e cl
eanu
p
Uga
nda
NW
SC
B
illing
sys
tem
/dat
abas
e cl
eanu
p
Uga
nda
NW
SC
R
even
ue C
olle
ctio
n/D
ebt m
anag
emen
t
Sud
an
Kha
rtou
m
Out
sour
cing
reve
nue
colle
ctio
n
Uga
nda
NW
SC
Fi
nanc
ial m
anag
emen
t
Uga
nda
NW
SC
M
IS
Uga
nda
NW
SC
Ta
riff P
olic
y A
naly
sis
�56 Annex C: Marketplace results
�57
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Sup
ply
& D
eman
d
MA
RK
ET
PLA
CE
: SE
CT
OR
PO
LIC
Y &
RE
FOR
MS
Cou
ntry
Util
ity/o
rgan
izat
ion
Req
uest
/offe
r
DE
MA
ND
SU
PP
LY
DR
C
RE
GID
ES
O
Pub
lic-p
rivat
e pa
rtne
rshi
ps
Ken
ya
Mal
indi
P
erfo
rman
ce c
ontr
acts
Ken
ya
Eld
owas
P
erfo
rman
ce-b
ased
ince
ntiv
es
Ken
ya
NW
SC
O
Per
form
ance
-bas
ed in
cent
ives
Tanz
ania
Li
ndi
Per
form
ance
-bas
ed in
cent
ives
Zam
bia
Lusa
ka W
ater
and
Sew
erag
e C
o P
erfo
rman
ce-b
ased
ince
ntiv
es
DR
C
RE
GID
ES
O
Cap
acity
bui
ldin
g of
man
agem
ent
Tanz
ania
D
AW
AS
CO
C
hang
e M
anag
emen
t
Tanz
ania
M
wan
za
Cha
nge
Man
agem
ent
Zam
bia
Lusa
ka W
ater
and
Sew
erag
e C
o C
hang
e M
anag
emen
t
Uga
nda
NW
SC
P
ublic
-priv
ate
part
ners
hips
Uga
nda
NW
SC
P
erfo
rman
ce c
ontr
acts
Uga
nda
NW
SC
P
erfo
rman
ce-b
ased
ince
ntiv
es
Uga
nda
NW
SC
D
evel
opm
ent &
impl
emen
tatio
n of
PIP
Uga
nda
NW
SC
C
hang
e M
anag
emen
t
Kenya
Eldow
as
ISOCertification
�57Annex C: Marketplace results
�58
Water Operators Partnerships-Africa Utility Performance Assessment
Sup
ply
& D
eman
d
MA
RK
ET
PLA
CE
: HU
MA
N R
ES
OU
RC
ES
Cou
ntry
Util
ity/o
rgan
izat
ion
Req
uest
/offe
r
DE
MA
ND
SU
PP
LY
Tanz
ania
M
beya
R
ecru
itmen
t
Tanz
ania
Za
nzib
ar
Rec
ruitm
ent
Tanz
ania
M
beya
O
n-th
e-jo
b-tr
aini
ng
Ken
ya
Nai
vash
a Te
am b
uild
ing
Zam
bia
Lusa
ka W
ater
and
Sew
erag
e C
o P
erfo
rman
ce m
anag
emen
t
Zam
bia
KW
SC
P
erfo
rman
ce m
anag
emen
t
Tanz
ania
Za
nzib
ar
Rig
ht s
izin
g
Ken
ya
NW
SC
R
ight
siz
ing
Tanz
ania
Ta
nga
Sta
ff m
otiv
atio
n
Tanz
ania
Za
nzib
ar
Sta
ff m
otiv
atio
n
Ken
ya
Kis
umu
Wat
er a
nd S
ewer
age
Co
Cap
acity
bui
ldin
g
Moz
ambi
que
C
apac
ity b
uild
ing
Sud
an
Kha
rtou
m
Cap
acity
bui
ldin
g
Tanz
ania
D
AW
AS
CO
C
apac
ity b
uild
ing
Tanz
ania
M
twar
a C
apac
ity b
uild
ing
Uga
nda
NW
SC
C
apac
ity b
uild
ing
D
RC
R
EG
IDE
SO
N
etw
orki
ng a
nd c
olla
bora
tion
R
egio
nal
CA
P-N
ET
HR
man
agem
ent
U
gand
a N
WS
C H
R m
anag
emen
t
Za
mbi
a S
outh
ern
Wat
er a
nd S
ewer
age
Co
Wor
king
with
trad
e un
ions
�58 Annex C: Marketplace results
The Water and Sanitation Program is an international partnership for improving water and sanitation sector policies, practices, and capacities to serve poor people
Water and Sanitation Program-Africa
The World Bank
Hill Park Building
Upper Hill Road
P.O. Box 30577 - 00100
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254-20-322 6334
Fax: +254-20-322 6386
Email: [email protected]
Web site: www.wsp.org
August 2009
WSP MISSIONThe Water and Sanitation Program is an international partnership for improving water and sanitation sector policies, practices, and capacities to serve poor people
WSP-AFRICA’S FINANCIAL PARTNERSAustralia, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, The World Bank, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Prepared by: Richard Schuen and Jonathan Parkinson
Contributions by: Caroline van den Berg and Alexander Danilenko leading the IBNET initiative, Mr. Dajan Hossana and Alhadji Dieng were instrumental in collecting data from the utilities in West Africa, and Lilian Otiego who entered and verified the data
Authors: Dr. Josses Mugabi (principal author), and Vivian Castro who managed the benchmarking exercise and final production of this report
Task Team Leader: Dennis Mwanza
Photographs: Courtesy of WSP-Africa
Financial support to produce this report jointly provided by WSP-AF and UN Habitat
Created by: Eric Lugaka
Top Related